Content uploaded by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen on Dec 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
eGovernment and Governance: The Danish-
Japanese models and timelines compared
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance and United Nations
University, Operating Unit for Policy-Driven Electronic Governance, morten.nielsen@ttu.ee
meyerhoff@unu.edu
Abstract: In 2012, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari compared the eGovernment efforts and
governance models of Denmark and Japan. Their analysis concluded that Japan could learn from
the Danish approach to standardized formats and processes; share components and contents,
especially basic technologies such as unique identifiers and digital signatures for coordinated,
convenient services for the users; involve users to develop user-centric services; and establish
inter-agency collaboration to achieve those goals. Here we find that Denmark and Japan have
since followed different trajectories. Denmark has focused on online services, welfare
technology, key enablers including standards and the backoffice, benefit realization and
management of information technology projects. Whereas Japan has largely focused on key
enablers, mainly electronic identifications, open data and open government. Both countries
have largely retained their governance models for eGovernment. While both countries have
successfully launched and completed various information communication technology initiatives
since 2012, our analysis highlight the continued strength of the Danish governance and joint-
governmental cooperation model over the more fragmented Japanese approach.
Keywords: Digitization, eGovernment, eGovernance, efficiency, effectiveness, good practice, ICT,
citizen-centric, innovation, Japan and Denmark
Acknowledgement: This paper has been supported in part by funding from: Tallinn University of
Technology, Project B42; OGI - Open Government Intelligence project in the EU Horizon 2020 framework
program, grant agreement 693849; UNU-EGOV - United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven
Electronic Governance. The author would like to thank Mika Yasouka (IT University, Denmark), Noriko Igari
and Masahiko Shoji (Glocom and Open Knowledge Foundation, Japan) for their valuable input
he strategies for applying information communication technology (ICT) to public
administration differ between countries. ICT and electronic government (eGovernment)
strategies are generally aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector
service delivery, or modernizing or even transforming public administration. The governance and
intra-governmental corporation models differ.
Focusing on electronic service provision (eServices) and eGovernment achievements in Japan
and Denmark, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari (2012) identified governance and intergovernmental
cooperation as key factors for successful eService supply and citizen take-up. Japan generally had
better infrastructure than Denmark, but lacked unique identifiers for individuals, businesses,
property and national one-stop-shops for services. Denmark’s systems of unique identifiers and
digital signature systems, such as the population register (the CPR registry) and business register
(the CVR and BBR registries), enabled the creation of user-centric web services on thematic portals,
for example Borger.dk, Virk.dk or Sundhed.dk (national portals for citizens, businesses and health,
respectively) (Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012). The comparatively higher level of strategic
governance and intergovernmental cooperation in Denmark suggests their importance for the
successful roll-out and subsequent citizen use of eServices.
In relation to standardization and sharing of common components, Japan lacked national
standards for interoperability and enterprise architecture, and generally did not develop, share or
reuse common components and contents. Thus Japan was unable to avoid the duplication of
investment, or achieve the efficiency in spending and operation seen in Denmark (Meyerhoff
Nielsen and Igari 2012).
Japan repeatedly failed to develop user-centric and user-friendly online services (eServices). In
contrast, Denmark saw usability, common look-and-feel, participatory design and testing as key
principles in the eGovernment Strategy, and essential for ensuring eService use (Meyerhoff
Nielsen and Igari 2012).
The Japanese also held security concerns about governmental ICT use; Japan was ranked the
lowest of 12 countries for perceived security associated with government ICT usage (MIC 2009,
Symatec 2009). Whereas Danish authorities actively marketed their online content as updated and
trustworthy. Moreover, the Japanese citizens’ distrust of government institutions was a barrier to
take-up of both eServices and key enablers (e.g., eIDs and digital signatures). The lack for trust in
authorities also limited the sharing of personal and company data between government agencies,
as well as between the public and private sectors. In comparison, Danes typically place a high level
of trust in public institutions, civil servants and eServices. Thus, Japan ranked 17th on the 2012
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) while Denmark ranked 1st (Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012,
Transparency International 2012).
In relation to governance and cross-governmental cooperation models, Japan’s IT Strategy
Council/CIOs Council (ITSC) and IT Strategic Headquarters (ITSH) – a cross-agency, cross-staffed
organization (under the Cabinet Secretariat) – was found to have limited influence in setting the
political influence and limited leadership and impact on the strategic direction of eGovernment.
Whereas the Danish counterpart, the steering committee for Joint Cross-Government Cooperation
(STS), the steering committee for the eGovernment strategy, and the Danish Agency for
Digitization within the Ministry of Finance established the holistic political direction, horizontal
and vertical leadership, strategies and coordination required for joint initiatives and cooperation
between national, regional and local authorities – giving citizens and businesses a sense of
institutions speaking with a “single voice” (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari
2012).
While neither this nor the Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari (2012) paper specifically address cultural,
social, political, economic or strategic differences, it is worth keeping these in mind when
revisiting Danish and Japanese eGovernment. Here we focus on the Japanese and Danish
governance models in place and their potential impact on eGovernment achievements and
eService take-up, to test whether the 2012 observations still hold true.
1. Methodology
To address the research gaps in relation to eGovernment governance and cross-governmental
cooperation identified by Meyerhoff Nielsen (2016), we apply a classical exploratory, qualitative,
two-case comparative study methodology (Benbasat, Goldstein et al. 1987, Rohlfing 2012, Yin
2013). The method establishes a framework for with-in case analysis. The aim of the with-in case
analysis is to identify the governance mechanisms in play in each of the selected cases and enable
the cross-case comparison between the two. The aim of the cross-case comparison is to determine
the correlation (i.e., the more of Y, the more X) between a strong cooperative governance model
(cause) and the introduction of online services (effect 1) and subsequent citizen use of the online
service delivery channel (effect 2).
Here we utilize an adapted version of Krimmer’s context, content, process model (CCP model)
[28] consisting of four macro-dimensions: 1) background indictors; 2) the national governance e
and cooperation model; 3) the national approach to eGovernment; and 4) effect measurements and
preconditions. Each dimension explains a key area that influences processes, choices and outcomes
in relation to eService supply and take-up. Using the framework, the paper compares Denmark
and Japan to identify their respective strengths and weaknesses in relation to their respective
governance models and eGovernment experiences, particularly in the period since 2012.
Denmark and Japan were chosen based on the “most similar” but “most different” principle
(Benbasat, Goldstein et al. 1987, Collier and Mahoney 1996, Yin 2013). The countries have similar
levels of socio-economic development and infrastructural sophistication, but different population
sizes, and different organizational, cultural and linguistic traditions. The difference in
administrative traditions and culture in particular, will help isolate the potential role played by the
existing governance models, level of intergovernmental cooperation, and strategic focus for the
2010–2016 period – and with particular reference to Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari’s previous
comparison (2012). Several quantitative precondition and effect measurements, like internet
availability and penetration, the use of online banking and shopping (i.e., indirect measurements
of digital skills), eIDs and a basket of eServices and international benchmarks are included to
provide the empirical basis for the effect of a given governance model.
Primary sources include relevant policy documents, national and international statistical sources
(e.g., International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (ITU 2014), UNDESA’s eGovernment
Readiness Index (UNDESA 2010, UNDESA 2012, UNDESA 2014) and
www.internetworldstats.com) and relevant academic and international references (e.g., UN and
EU).
2. Background
Denmark and Japan offer vastly different perspectives, experiences, population size,
administrative systems and levels of complexity.
2.1. Socio-economic factors
Socio-economically, the two countries are high-income nation states (Table 1). Denmark is a small
country, with an open-expert lead economy with low GDP and productivity growth. Japan is large
country in the midst of a decade long recession. The population is ageing in both countries,
although faster in Japan.
Table 1: Socio-economic data 2015 (CIA 2015)
Denmark
Japan
Population
5,581,503
126,919,659
Territorial size
43,094 km2
377,915 km2
Population density
129.5 per km2
335.8 per km2
Official languages
Danish
Japanese
GDP (billion)
€260.74 bill (est’15)
3,697.82 (est’15)
GDP per capita
€46,715 (est’15)
€29,315 (est’15)
GDP growth
1.6% (est’15)
0.6% (est’15)
Unemployment
4.7% (est’15)
3.3% (est’15)
Imports (billion)
€75.12 (est’15)
€560.45 (est’15)
Exports (billion)
€84.32 (est’15)
€559.03 (est’15)
2.2. Internet access and use
Access to, and the skills to use, the internet are prerequisites for successful eGovernment and the
uptake of provided eServices. Both Denmark and Japan have successfully rolled out internet
infrastructure (Table 2), with similarly high rates of household penetration (93% and 97% in
Denmark and Japan respectively). OECD data from 2014 show that broadband prices are lower in
Japan (at US$ 21.74 – 51.96) than in Denmark (US$ 22.24 – 62.68, both adjusted to purchasing price
parity) – and Japan offer faster internet speeds and uses superior technology (such as FTTH,
Fiber/LAN and fiber connections) than Denmark (OECD 2016).
Table 2: Number of mobile and broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 2000–2014 (selected years)
(ITU 2014)
2000
2005
2010
2014
Denmark
63,01 / 1,26
100,58 / 24,80
115,67 / 38,44
125,89 / 42,34
Japan
53,12 / 0,68
75,98 / 18,35
96,81 / 28,04
120,23 / 29,31
Similarly, government policies have facilitated the development of a digitally literate population
and society, as illustrated by the growth of internet use since 2000 (Table 3).
Table 3: Individual use of the internet per 100 inhabitants 2000-2014 (selected years) (ITU 2014)
2000
2005
2010
2014
Denmark
39,17
82,74
88,72
95,99
Japan
29,99
66,92
78,21
90,58
3. eGovernment focus
ICT has long been used in public administrations in Denmark and Japan, but policy and strategy
focus vary, as expected. A historic overview is helpful for comparing the two national governance
models.
3.1. Denmark
As a plan for maximizing the ability of management to achieve a set of organizational objectives
(Heeks 2005), Danish eGovernment strategies have followed a similar trajectory as most countries
around the world. While the focus has shifted from defining and implementing relevant standards,
infrastructure, and services to benefit realization (Table 4), the key objectives of the Danish
eGovernment strategies have been to make Denmark a leading information and knowledge
society, and to increase efficiency and productivity while preserving the welfare-state model and
associated values (DIGST 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016)
The Danish eGovernment policies have evolved over time, and since 2011 have focused on cost-
savings and benefit realization through mandatory self-service and the business case model, plus
the strengthening of cross-governmental cooperation and management in IT projects. Thus
ensuring a data exchange and a high degree of interoperability (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014).
The 5th eGovernment Strategy for 2016–2020 follows a similar pattern and builds on previous
strategies. The focus is on increased effectiveness and usability of eServices, as well as the value
added; welfare technologies; private sector growth through public sector digitization,
administrative burden reduction, data sharing and reuse (including the once only principle); a
more coherent eGovernment framework (i.e., less silos); maintaining and improving the IT
infrastructure; privacy and data protection; and improving the management of IT projects and
common public programs and efforts (DIGST 2016, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016).
Table 4: eGovernment in Denmark 2000–2020 (DIGST 2011, DIGST 2016)
3.2. Japan
The December 1994 Cabinet “Master plan for promoting government-wide use of IT” can be
considered as the first coordinated Japanese national strategy; clear strategy documents for the
promotion of ICT use in public administration and eGovernment have been in place ever since
(Table 5). Japan initially followed a similar policy path as many other countries. Focus has
foremost been on the roll-out of government networks and broadband infrastructure while
focusing on ICT enabled efficiency and effectiveness initiatives and public sector reform and
2001-2003: Digital collaboration
Allowing citizens to send e-mail to the public sector and authorities to adopt digital
channels of communication.
Examples: Digital signatures.
2004-2006: Internal digitalization and
efficient payments
Focus on secure e-mail between authorities, joint government standards, and portals.
Examples: eFaktura (eInvoice), NemKonto (single bank account for government use),
Virk.dk (business portal), Sundhed.dk (health portal), and digital document and archive
systems.
2007-2010: Shared infrastructure and one
point of access
Mandatory use of shared infrastructure; components and standards; increased
cooperation; value added services; and efficiency.
Examples: Borger.dk (the citizen portal), NemID (digital signature), NemLog-in (single,
sign-on), eIndkomst (electronic income registry), Digital Post, NemSMS (SMS service
component), and business case model.
2011-2015: The path to future welfare
Focus on benefit realization; mandatory use of Digital Post and selected eServices; reuse
of data; increased cooperation.
Examples: Data distribution, investment in IT and digital teaching aids, tested welfare
technology, digital literacy, and campaigns.
2016-2020: A stronger and more secure
digital society
Focus on better, more coherent, user-friendly online services, ICT-led growth and
efficiency, security, cross-government cooperation, and benefit realization.
Examples: User-journeys for e.g. moving, business reporting and company registration,
administrative burden reduction, once-only-principle, data driven growth, SMART
cities, legal framework, security, cloud computing, ICT support and joint service center
for portals and joint-government components like NemID, Digital Post, etc.
governance of ICT initiatives and strategies (Jain 2002, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012, Igari
2014). Similarly, there has been a focus on front-office services and portals. The approach remains
unnecessarily complex, with strategies for ICT and open data added in 2010 and 2012 respectively
(ITSH 2010, ITSH 2012), with limited focus on benefit realization and usability, and only recent
emphasis on strengthening the governance model guiding ICT investments (Jain 2002, Meyerhoff
Nielsen and Igari 2012, Igari 2014).
Table 5: eGovernment in Japan 1995-2015 (ITSH 2001, ITSH 2003, ITSH 2009, MIC 2009, ITSH 2010, ITSH
2012, MIC 2012, ITSH 2016)
1995-2000: Master plan for promoting
government-wide use of IT (rev. 1997)
ICT enabled public sector reforms. Promotion of the information society.
Examples: Roll-out
2001-2003: e-Japan strategy
Emphasis on key IT infrastructure and use, including broadband roll-out nationally,
increased use of IT and internet, plus eService development.
Examples: Government portal, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), establishment of Strategic
Steering Committee in PM’s office. IT Basic Law on the formation of an advanced IT
network society.
2003-2009: e-Japan II
Focus on eGovernment promotion for increased efficiency and effectiveness, including
ICT enabled public sector reform.
Examples: one-stop services, optimization plans for business process and systems.
2009-20015: i-Japan II
Focus on ICT use and solutions at national and local level, in healthcare and education.
Coordination and cooperation for implementation of eGovernment, which should be
user-centric and secure.
Examples: eID, digital PO Box, Electronic Health Record, create a governance structure
including appointment of CIOs.
2016-2020: Declaration to be the World’s
Most Advanced IT Nation
Focus on back-office reform, including business process reengineering and systems
elimination (up to 908 systems) and 100 billion yen cost saving. Reform of employment
security and pensions. Front-end services including roll-out of national ID cards and
numbers to improve social security and tax number systems and user-friendliness.
Promotion of safe and secure data exchange, including open data and cybersecurity.
Improvement of national governance structures.
Examples: Eliminate up to 908 systems, save Yen 100 billion annually in operation costs.
ID card and eID, launch user-orientated data and AI platform, updated open data
platform. Promote reforms by Deputy Directors-General for Cybersecurity &
Information Technology.
The i-Japan Strategy 2009–2015 has been replaced by the Declaration to be the World’s Most
Advanced IT Nation for 2016–2020, which was revised in mid-2016. Considering that the
introduction a unique electronic identity (eID) was scheduled for 2013, but was only agreed upon
in late 2015, it is not surprising that eIDs are a key focal point of the current strategy. The lack of
progress on one-stop services, an absence of intergovernmental corporation on ICT issues, and
scandals surrounding “missing pensions records”, have damaged public confidence in ICT in
Japan (Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012, Hiramoto 2013, Igari 2014). To address the strategy aims
of achieving a safe, secure, and comfortable life for citizens by creating a society in which all
citizens are dynamically engaged, the 2016–2020 strategic focus is on
breaking down barriers between ministries to achieve cross-cutting coordination, with the
Government CIO acting in a guiding capacity, and the deployment of successful national
initiatives to regional and local level – which are considered promising developments (ITSH 2016).
3.3. Governance models and institutional frameworks in place
As illustrated by the varying degrees of focus on intergovernmental cooperation, management and
governance of eGovernment, policies and initiatives are prioritized differently in Denmark and
Japan – and with different results (Table 6).
Table 6: General governance and institutional frameworks in Denmark and Japan (Meyerhoff Nielsen
2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012, Igari 2014, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014, DIGST 2016, ITSH 2016)
Denmark
Japan
National institutional framework and
governance
Centralized model.
National, regional and local government
level. Consists of 5 regions and 98
municipalities.
Centralized model. National, regional and
local government level. Complex system of
47 prefecturas, multiple sub-prefectures
and districts, 1719 municipalities of four
“Kanje” types including cities, towns,
wards, non-municipalities.
Decentralization of government authority
Large degree of local autonomy and
decision making including tax and budget
spending. C.70-80% of citizen services are
provided by municipalities. Degree of
central control via annual budget
negotiations.
National government control prefecturas
and municipalities including tax collection,
borrowing. C. 70% of budget is allocated to
municipalities. Lack of progress on
intergovernmental cooperation and
decentralization.
Japan and Denmark also take different approach to governance, decision making, and the degree
of cooperation between authorities and levels of government, the private sector, civil society and
research. Despite these differences, similarities also exist. Table 7 summaries the governance of
eGovernment strategies and action plans for each of the three countries.
Table 7: eGovernment governance and cooperation models (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen
and Igari 2012, Igari 2014, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014, DIGST 2016, ITSH 2016, ITSH 2016)
Denmark
Japan
Responsible authority for eGovernment
strategy
Ministry of Finance (MoF), Danish Agency
for Digitization (DIGST) including steering
committee for Joint Cross-Government
Cooperation (STS) and steering committee
for the eGovernment Strategy.
IT Strategy Council/CIOs Council (ITSC)
and IT Strategic Headquarters and its
national CIO (since 2016) for the
promotion of an Advanced Information
and Telecommunications Network Society
(ITSH - IT Strategic Headquarter), in
Cabinet Office. Regulatory responsibility is
in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communication (MIC).
Responsible authority for action plan
DIGST.
ITSH and national CIO (since 2016)
responsible for annual priority policy
programs, MIC has the regulatory
responsibility for eGovernment
Responsible authority for initiating and
coordinating new eGov strategies and
action plans
DIGST.
ITSH, in principle.
Chairperson organization
DIGST on behalf of MoF.
PM chairs ITSC and ITSH but not MIC,
whose responsible minister is a member,
despite the regulatory responsibility.
National CIO at ITSH (since 2016) is
responsible for meetings.
Hosting organization and secretariat
DIGST.
Cabinet office host ITSC and the ITSH.
Member organizations
Representatives from MoF (i.e. DIGST),
key ministries like economy, taxation,
justice, science, health and interior, Danish
PM, Chief cabinet secretary, MIC, Minister
of Posts and Telecommunications, Minister
of International Trade and Industry plus
Regions (DR) and Local Government
Denmark (LGDK).
other key ministries. IT and technology
industry representatives and academia
represented.
National eGovernance and cooperation
model
Centralized with mixed features, i.e.
process driven by DIGST but
representatives from all levels of
government, initiatives from all
stakeholders, consultative and consensus
based with a strong mandate.
Hybrid, i.e. centralized in relation to
strategy and policy development, but
decentralized and uncoordinated in
relation to prefecturas and municipalities –
not represented on ITSC or in ITSH. MIC
has regulatory responsibility for
eGovernment. Weak ITSH mandate
compared to MIC.
Process of eGovernment strategy and
action plan development and approval
(from idea to approval by government)
Centralized process coordinated by DIGST
but consultation with all relevant state
holders including key ministries, DR and
LGDK, private and civic interest groups.
Centralized process coordinated by ITSH
and with consultation of large IT and
technology companies. MIC and other
strong ministries does not necessarily
comply with ITSH. Lack consultation with
prefectura, municipalities and other
interests.
eGovernment strategy legality
Yes, part of the government program.
Yes, part of the government program.
Action plan (i.e. is the strategy
underpinned by an action plan)
Yes.
No, annual policy priorities program in
place for e-Japan II 2003-2009 but and
again for 2016-2020 strategy including
KPIs..
Action plan legally binding
Yes, is part of the government program
and annual budget negotiations between
all levels of government.
No.
In Denmark, DIGST is responsible for eGovernment strategies and action plans and their daily
coordination. This include a mandate to initiate and ensure benefit realization and compliance. The
current framework was introduced following a merger of the key government players, including
the Digital Taskforce (established in 2005) and hosted by the Ministry of Finance, the Agency for
Governmental Management and the eGovernment related standards, infrastructure and platforms
from the National IT- and Telecom Agency. The aim was to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the governance model (DIGST 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, Meyerhoff Nielsen
2014, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016).
Decision making is generally made in the Steering Committee for the eGovernment strategy.
The steering committee meets 10–12 times annually, is chaired by DIGST, and consists of
representatives (generally directors and key unit heads) from key ministries, plus Danish Regions
(DR) and Local Government Denmark (LGDK) (Figure 1) (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011, Meyerhoff
Nielsen 2014, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016).
The strategy, action plan (including individual programs and projects), budgets and final
reports must be approved by the Joint Committee for Cross Government Cooperation (STS). The
STS is chaired by the Ministry of Finance and meet approximately four times per year and consist
of permanent secretaries sitting in the cabinet committees for coordination and economic affairs
and management committees of DR and LGDK. The STS members thus advise the individual
ministers in the cabinet before an eGovernment strategy is presented to the parliament for
approval by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government. For national strategies and
reform program there is a tradition to have broad parliamentary support, including from
opposition, to ensure continuity in the strategic direction of the country (Meyerhoff Nielsen 2011,
Meyerhoff Nielsen 2014, Meyerhoff Nielsen 2016).
Figure 1: eGovernment governance and
coordination model in Denmark
Figure 2: eGovernment governance and
coordination model in Japan
In Japan the IT Strategic Headquarter (ITSH) has, since January 2001, been the mandated body and
key eGovernment coordinator. The ITSH is located in the cabinet office and acts as the secretariat
for the IT Strategic Council/CIOs Council (established September 2002 and henceforth ITSC), the
planning board (established March 2010) and various committees. With the 2016–2020 declaration,
a national Government CIO position was created within the ITSH. The new government CIO is
tasked with the guidance of the national eGovernment strategy, including cooperation with
relevant headquarters, development and management of evaluation indicators for monitoring of
progress (including KPIs for the strategy). Similarly, the government CIO will evaluate the IT-
related measures of ministries and agencies, propose revision of existing initiatives and goals
within the overall framework and budget of the eGovernment strategy (Kantei 2015, ITSH 2016,
ITSH 2016).
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication is a regulatory authority responsible for
ICT, in particular in the perfecturas and municipalities - which are not represented in the ITSH,
ITSC, planning board or committees. Selected representatives from large IT and technology firms
and academia are represented in the ITSC (Figure 2). Roles, responsibilities and mandates of the
planning board in decision making and in relation to the ITSC and the government CIOs
appointed in August 2012 is somewhat ambiguous (Jain 2002, Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari 2012,
Igari 2014, ITSH 2016).
4. Available key enablers, citizen eServices their use and impact
Having outlined the eGovernment strategies of Japan and Denmark, as well as their respective
governance and cooperation models, we next address the key enablers and citizen eServices that
have been rolled-out (supplied) in Denmark and Japan. Moreover, we ask whether these have led
to the envisioned impacts (demand and use). Data for citizens’ use of key enablers, such as
electronic identities (eIDs), digital signatures and the volume of public service delivery online, is
available for Denmark but was more difficult to obtain for Japan (Table 8).
Table 8: Individual use of the internet 2000-2014, selected years (MIC 2012, NIA 2015, DIGST 2016, Kantei
2016)
eService availability
Degree of digitization
(i.e. % of service delivery volume online)
2012
2015
Denmark
Japan
Denmark
Japan
Denmark
Japan
eID/eSignature
NemID
Yes
79.1%
--
89.2%
*7.9%
Digital post
Digital Post
No
--
--
89.2%
--
Tax declaration
Yes
Yes
100%
¤51.4%
100%
¤56.5%
Register for school
yes
n/a
#57%
--
96%
--
Register for university
yes
n/a
80%
--
100%
--
Apply for student grant
yes
n/a
100%
--
100%
--
Change address
yes
Yes
63%
0.0000021%
--
Housing subsidy
yes
n/a
77%
--
79%
--
Apply for pension
yes
Yes
94%
--
95%
--
Report vermin (fix my street)
yes
n/a
#56%
--
73%
--
Report theft
yes
n/a
41%
--
84%
--
NOTE: * Based on the authors’ own calculations (i.e., 10 million eIDs for a population of 126,919.659 (Kantei 2016)). ¤ Based on the
authors’ own calculations and nominal volume from the National Tax Agency annual report (NIA 2015).
Similarly, when we sought generic data for the proportion of citizens use of online banking
(eBanking), online purchases (eCommerce) and their level of interaction with public authorities
online, this data was mainly identifiable for Denmark (Table 9).
Table 9: Citizens use of eBanking, eCommerce and interaction with public authorities online 2000–2015
(at least once per year), selected years (Eurostat 2016)
2010
2015
Denmark
Japan
Denmark
Japan
Online banking
71%
--
85%
*16%
Online commerce
68%
**49%
79%
**52%
Interacted with government online
78%
--
88%
--
Obtained info. from a gov. website
76%
--
86%
--
Submitted a complete form (eService)
51%
--
69%
--
NOTE: While outdated, 13% of Japanese citizens interaction with authorities is available for 2008 compared to 49% of Danes the same
year (Goto 2008, Eurostat 2016). *Figure varies from 13 to 16% depending on source. Mode of contact defined as mobile phone
(Kawamoto 2015). ** Online commerce figures based on a different collection methodology and from 2010 and 2014 (OECD 2016).
Although both Denmark and Japan are included in the international eGovernment indexes of the
United Nations and the Waseda), neither index address the actual use of the online services
offered (UNDESA 2014, Obi 2015). The supply orientated Waseda Index covers network
preparedness, eService and national portal availability, and some management and governance
issues. In the Waseda, Denmark outscores Japan (Table 10).
Table 10: Waseda Index for eGovernment, 2012 and 2015s (Obi 2012, Obi 2015)
2012
2015
Denmark
Japan
Denmark
Japan
Overall eGovernment ranking
5 (86.5)
8 (81.5)
3 (91.25)
6 (87.77)
Overall eGovernment score
3
<10
1
<10
Network preparedness
4
9
1
<10
eServices/interface (selected services)#
7
7
1
9
Portal (i.e. national one-stop-shop)
8
10
2
<10
Management optimization
<10
5
6
4
Government CIO (governance aspect)
9
4
5
8
eGovernment promotion (i.e. strategy)
5 (86.5)
8 (81.5)
3 (91.25)
6 (87.77)
* Score for criteria and sub-criteria are not available online. #Title of criteria changed from 2012 “required interphase/application” to
“online service” in 2015.
5. Observations and conclusions
The Danish cross-governmental model revolves around the STS and joint-steering committee
within DIGST and the Ministry of Finance. The STS creates horizontal connections across the
central government agencies, as well as vertical connections among the central government,
regions and municipalities. Joint initiatives and cooperation between public authorities at all levels
of government gives citizens and businesses a sense of the government and institutions speaking
with a “single voice”. While public-private cooperation and projects do exist (e.g., the digital
postbox, eID and eSignature), there could be better civil society and private sector representation
in the joint-steering committee to ensure that the public sector cost saving agenda also benefits
citizens and businesses (e.g., through administrative burden reduction and user-centric and
proactive service delivery). An unfortunate aspect of the current 2016–2020 strategy is the vague
formulation of measurable outcomes and KPIs – a change from the previous strategic periods’ very
ambitious goals.
Although Japan’s ITSH is a cross-agency, cross-staffed organization, its political influence,
agenda setting role, budget and leadership are all weak compared to its Danish counterpart.
Despite annual priority policy programs supporting the strategic objectives of the eGovernment
strategies, there is limited evidence of actual benefit realization in strategic initiatives – the
repeated delay of the decision to introduce a unique personal identifier is a key example of this
challenge. Japan’s 2016–2020 strategy does address the need for a more coordinated approach to
governance and intergovernmental cooperation, monitoring of progress, and KPIs (Kantei 2015,
ITSH 2016, ITSH 2016). Unfortunately, local and regional authorities remain unrepresented in the
relevant decision making, in which only large IT and technology interests are included. Similarly,
the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication holds the regulatory responsibility, but does
neither chair, host nor support the ITSC or the ITSH. Unfortunately, the newly created government
CIO position seems unlikely to address this build-in conflict in the Japanese governance model.
These factors may explain the resistance from line ministries, prefecturas and municipalities –
especially in light of the complex administrative set-up.
As observed in 2012, the Danish model continues to prove its worth. Not only in providing the
strategic direction but also by delivering real and measurable results of digitization. In contrast,
the Japanese model has yet to deliver similar measurable results. While, initially delayed Japan is
rolling out of eIDs with good results, similarly the volume of online tax submissions is increasing,
and the country has a vibrant open data community. The comparatively weak mandate, complex
set-up, lack of cross-governmental cooperation, lack of prefectura and municipality representation
in Japan seem to continue to limit measurable progress, but this point requires further analysis.
The general lack of background and effect indicators (see Section 4) for Japan is unfortunate. That
said, three broad conclusions may be drawn: First, the lack of data may imply a lack of eService
offer; Second, there is a potential lack of focus on benefit realization (i.e., the actual use of provided
eService offers); Third, data is confidential. It will, therefore, be interesting to see whether the
mandate of the new government CIO will lead to a more systematic approach to monitoring and
measurement of the strategies and initiatives, implementation, and KPIs.
In conclusion, and in relation to Meyerhoff Nielsen and Igari’s 2012 findings (Meyerhoff Nielsen
and Igari 2012), Japan can still learn from the Danish approach in a number of ways. The
governance structure and mandate of Japan could be strengthened, and while the current 2016–
2020 strategy emphasizes greater coordination, monitoring and measurable outcomes are yet to be
tested and proven in practice. Similarly, representatives from regional and local authorities should
be included in the ITSC, especially as the current strategy included the regional and local roll-out
of successful national initiatives, use of national ID cards and eIDs. Although the initiatives on
standardized formats and processes, shared components and contents, involvement of end-users
in developing value adding, personal and user-friendly services based on the eID, and open data
initiatives are highlighted by the 2016–2020 strategic period, it remains unclear whether their
promise will be realized.
References
Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein and M. Mead (1987). "The case research strategy in studies of information
systems." MIS quarterly: 369-386.
CIA, C. I. A. (2015, 1 July 2014). "The World Factbook." Retrieved 1 October, 2015, from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html.
Collier, D. and J. Mahoney (1996). "Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research." World Politics
49(01): 56-91.
DIGST, D. (2011). The digital path to future welfare: Joint national eGovernment strategy 2011-2015.
Copenhagen, DIGST, Digitaliseringsstyrelsen.
DIGST, D. (2016). "Det digitale scorecard." Retrieved 29 March 2016, 2016, from
http://www.scorecard.digst.dk/.
DIGST, D. (2016). "Digitaliseringsstyrelsen." Retrieved 25 March 2016, 2016, from http://www.digst.dk/
DIGST, D. (2016). Et stærkere og mere trygt digitalt samfund: Den fællesoffentlige digitaliseringsstrategi
2016-2020. Copenhagen, DIGST, Digitaliseringsstyrelsen.
Eurostat. (2016). "Information society household survey." Retrieved 29 June 2016, 2016, from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/database.
Goto, R. S., Osamu (2008). Results of analysis on usage data for online application systems. A presentation at
the 6th meeting of 2008, eGovernment Evaluation Committee, IT Strategic Headquarters. Tokyo.
Heeks, R. (2005). Implementing and managing eGovernment: an international text, Sage.
Hiramoto, K. (2013). e-Government and Open Government Data in Japan. Tokyo, Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry.
Igari, N. (2014). "How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan."
Telematics and Informatics 31(1): 115-125.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2001). e-Japan Strategy. I. S. H. ITSH. Tokyo, ITSH, IT Strategic Headquarter.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2003). e-Japan Strategy II. I. S. H. ITSH. Tokyo, ITSH, IT Strategic Headquarter.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2009). i-Japan Strategy 2015: Striving to Create a Citizen-Driven, Reassuring and Vibrant
Digital Society
. I. S. H. ITSH. Tokyo, ITSH, IT Strategic Headquarter.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2010). The New Strategy in Information and Communications Technology (IT): Roadmaps. I.
S. H. ITSH. Tokyo, ITSH, IT Strategic Headquarter.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2012). Open Government Data Strategy. I. S. H. ITSH. Tokyo, ITSH, IT Strategic Headquarter.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2016). Declaration to be the World’s Most Advanced IT Nation. I. S. H. ITSH. Tokyo.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2016). "IT Policy: Major Steps and Decisions Taken." Retrieved 25 March 2016, 2016, from
http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/it/index_e.html.
ITSH, I. S. H. (2016). "IT 総合戦略本部）eガバメント閣僚会議 / IT Strategy Headquarters, eGovernment
ministerial meeting." Retrieved 2 October 2016, 2016, from
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/it2/egov/index.html.
ITU, I. T. U. (2014). "Worlds Telecommunication / ICT Indicators Database." from
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/wtid.aspx.
Jain, P. (2002). "The catch-up state: E-government in Japan." Japanese Studies 22(3): 237-255.
Kantei (2015). ｅガバメント閣僚会議 ワーキンググループ(国・地方ＩＴ化・ＢＰＲ推進チーム) 23 April
2015 / eGovernment Council of Ministers working group (national and local IT in · BPR Promotion
Team) Minutes 23 April 2015. P. O. Kantei. Tokyo.
Kantei (2016). マイナンバーカードの発行および 利活用の進捗状況等について. P. O. Kantei. Tokyo.
Kawamoto, S. (2015). Internet banking slow to take root in nation where branches offer friendly face time.
The Japan Times. Tokyo, The Japan Times.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. (2011). "Danish eGovernment Success Factors: Strategies and Good Practice
Examples." Global Strategy and Practice of E-Governance: Examples from Around the World: Examples
from Around the World: 231.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. (2016). Governance and online service delivery: The Danish case. Electronic
Government and Electronic Participation, Guimaraes, IOS Press.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. (2016). The Role of Governance, Cooperation, and eService Use in Current
eGovernment Stage Models. Hawaii.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. and N. Igari (2012). "Speaking Danish in Japan." CeDEM 12 Conference for E-
Democracy and Open Government 3-4 May 2012 Danube-University Krems, Austria: 137.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. Y., Mika (2014). "An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit
realisation." Internet Technologies and Society 2014 Conference Proceedings: 47-58.
MIC, M. o. I. A. a. C. (2009). White Paper on Informaiton and Technology Communications. Tokyo, Gyosei.
MIC, M. o. I. A. a. C. (2012). State of Affairs of Use of the Internet for Administrative Procedures. Tokyo,
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication.
NIA, N. T. A. J. (2015). Annual report 2015. Tokyo, Natonal Tax Agency Japan.
Obi, T. (2012). WASEDA - IAC International e-Government Index. Tokyo, Waseda University and IAC
International Agency of CIO.
Obi, T. (2015). WASEDA - IAC International e-Government Index. Tokyo, Waseda University and IAC
International Agency of CIO.
OECD. (2016). "ICT access and use by individuals." OECD.Stat Retrieved 29 June 2016, 2016, from
http://stats.oecd.org/.
Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference: an integrative framework, Palgrave Macmillan.
Symatec (2009). Norton Online Living Report. Mountain View.
Transparency International. (2012). "CPI - Corruption Perception Index." Corruption Perception Index
Retrieved 14 June 2016, 2016, from http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview.
UNDESA, U. N. D. o. E. a. S. A. (2010). E-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of
financial and economic crisis. New York, United Nations.
UNDESA, U. N. D. o. E. a. S. A. (2012). E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New
York.
UNDESA, U. N. D. o. E. a. S. A. (2014). E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want.
New York, United Nations.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications.
About the Author
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Morten is an eGovernment and eVoting researcher at Talinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse
School of Innovation and Governance (www.ttu.ee/nurkse), in Estonia. He is an independent eGovernment
consultant and currently an academic fellow at United Nations University, Operational Unit for Policy-
Driven Electronic Government (https://egov.unu.edu) working on ICT enabled administrative burden
reduction and public service delivery. He is the author and co-author of various publications, a member of
various conference committees and reviewer for several eGovernment journals. He regularly teaches on
eGovernment and social media use (www.msm.nl, www.ttu.ee, www.eipa.eu). Past employment includes
the Danish Agency for Digitisation (www.digst.dk), National IT- and Telecom Agency,
Borgerkommunikationskontoret/borger.dk (www.itst.dk); Danish Technological Institute, Policy and
Business Analysis (www.dti.dk); European Institute of Public Administration (www.eipa.eu); Centre for the
Development of Enterprise (www.cde.eu); European Commission, DG DEVL
(www.europa.eu/pol/dev/index_en.htm); and University of KwaZulu-Natal (www.ukzn.ac.za).
