Getting under the skin of Gov. 2.0

Here’s a presentation on the nitty-gritty of Gov 2.0 Issues.

Explore posts in the same categories: Government 2.0, Open Government


You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Comments on “Getting under the skin of Gov. 2.0”

  1. “Gov2.0” and “Open Government” do not mean the same thing (even if some people have begun wishing it to be the case).

    “Open Government” means making government more “transparent, participatory, and collaborative”. (Technology can help, but is not always needed at every step.)

    “Government 2.0” (according the 2005 book;s subtitle, and its common use thereafter) is “Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy”.

    So “Gov2.0” ONLY relates to solutions that require “using technology”. (My guess is that the original book title was “eGovernment 2.0”, but that the book publisher dropped the “e” in order to make the book more marketable.)

    But, after all the recent hoop-la about “Gov2.0”, many people are realizing that Technology, alone, will not be enough (duh) to create culture change.

    So, now, many of the “Gov2.0” aficionados, instead of ackn0wledging that their area is merely part of the larger “Open Government” movement, are trying to expand the definition of “Gov2.0” by now also including the non-tech (i.e., human/social) aspects of OpenGov.

    Rather than admit Technology’s limitations in improving the quality of government, they are attempting to expanding their borders all that is now covered by the term “Open Government”.

    It strikes me as acting somewhat oblivious .. or arrogant .. some of both.

  2. citizenengagement Says:

    hi Stephen
    thanks for the commentary – your points are valid. Short-cut thinking is a human failing and jargon (web 2.0, gov 2.0, e-democracy etc etc) can cloud communications. Ultimately, it’s about changing culture and the way we do things to better meet the needs of our citizens, clients, customers whatever the nature of that relationship. It’s about elasticising the existing paradigms so that they stretch to accommodate different shapes and still meet the required outcome.

  3. Jargon is not a bad thing, as long as the users have the same understanding. Unfortunately, it seems that many users of “Gov2.0” seem to have their own personal definition.

    If what you mean by “elasticising the existing paradigms” is that people need to stretch their mindset/viewpoint, then yes, that is what I said. Opening one’s eyes to the wider view will reveal that “Gov2.0” is part of the “Open Government” landscape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: