ONE-STOP-GOVERNMENT IN EUROPE AN OVERVIEW

1 ONE-STOP-GOVERNMENT IN EUROPE: AN OVERVIEW Herbert Kubicek, Martin Hagen University of Bremen 1. The need for One-Stop-Government One-Stop-Government addresses a crucial problem of modern public administrations. The modern state has taken up many responsibilities, starting from insuring public safety and guaranteeing essential infra- structures, continuing to provide for health and welfare and culminating in pursuing common interests, such as promoting a strong economy or protecting the environment. In the historical process of assuming more and more responsibilities, the administration and operation of these programs has been assigned to certain, functionally delineated branches or agencies of public administration. In addition, typical divisions of legal and/or operational authority between national, regional and local levels of governments exist. Also, semi-private or private organizations have been charged with carrying out public services. The result is a highly fragmented public sector which does not reflect a customer’s perspective, who expects or prefers to have all related concerns con- cerning a certain event or situation to be taken care of by one or a few, but not many service providers. What is needed is a new organizational model to deliver services from the point of view of the “customer”, as citizens and business can be called in their particular role in the process of service delivery (the term is heavily contested in public administra- tion reform, see for example Seidle (1995)). In today’s economy, citizens are used to comprehensive services. Supermarkets offer many different kinds of foods, travel agencies sell package tours, and banks take care of everything from checking ac- counts to investment strategies. Turning to government, a citizen could expect to find all his needs associated with retirement being provided by a single office. So could a business wanting to build a new storage facility on its premises. Due to functional fragmentation, however, in most countries both would have to deal with many different agencies. To complicate matters, different levels of government and functional divisions are so many that in most situations citizens and businesses do not even know who is responsible for their concern, causing many One-Stop-Government in Europe 2 frustrating contacts with public administration. One-Stop-Government is a solution for these problems, as it is strongly supported by public administration experts underscoring the crucial role of „integration“ for achieving citizen- or customer-oriented government (Fountain, 1994; Seidle, 1995; Federal Benchmarking Consortium, 1997; Intergovern- mental Advisory Board, 1998; Bent, Kernaghan et al., 1999; Office of Intergovernmental Solutions, 1999). Integration, however, is not the only aspect of customer- orientation. Citizens want service with as little effort as possible on their side. Difficult-to-understand rules and procedures are posing ob- stacles for them. They also want quick service. They don’t like waiting in lines or shopping around and are pleased with instant resolving of the matter. In addition, services should be easily accessible, which means convenient opening hours and service delivery points within a short distance from where they live and work. The exact order of preferences is difficult to assess, however. It varies between types of services. One survey among citizens of Germany’s city of Hagen found the following preferences: Fig. 1: What citizens want from their city administration; survey of citizens of Hagen, Germany, 1992, in percentage. Source: (Kißler, Bogumil et al., 1994, 114) Overview 3 As can be seen, “one building for all services” is not the highest preference. This has to be kept in mind: One-Stop-Government cannot be believed to be a cure-all. The result of the Hagen citizens’ survey can be explained in so far as respondents were asked when visiting agencies, causing factors directly associated with their visit and/or re- cent experience to score highest. In absolut numbers, “one building” was still ranked as important. Another aspect of citizen preferences to be considered is the high preference for government services to be delivered online. When asked which service they would like to be offered online, European citizens rank administration services first. Top 12 % Tele-administration 47,8 Tele-tourism 42,3 Tele-medicine 41,9 Job hunt 41,5 Distance learning 33,9 E-commerce 33,8 Consumer rights 33,4 Home banking 33,3 Newspapers online 29,1 Virtual Musea 21,6 Life insurance, financial plan 14 E-democracy 10,9 Tab. 1: Top-ranked online-services by European citizens. Source: Euro- barometer, EC-ISAC Measuring Information Society 1998: www.ispo.cec.be/polls. This could be an indicator that citizens would like to interact with administration in a quality usually associated with online services: fast, easy and comprehensive. As has been explained above, these attributes also apply to One-Stop-Government as well. Not only citizens and business, but public administration itself can profit from One-Stop-Government. Citizen-orientation is an integral component of most public administration reforms, see, for example Os- borne and Gaebler (1993, 166-194). In the quest for introducing new public management methods and practices, however, this component One-Stop-Government in Europe 4 has often been overlooked. It re-appears on the agenda when ways are sought to further improve public administration beyond existing proj- ects. One-Stop-Government can serve a variety of goals: • Paying attention to citizen and business needs improves the image of public administration. • More efficient and effective interactions between the public and administrations save costs on all sides. • Approving construction of a business or re-integrating an unem- ployed person into the workforce is not only in the personal interest of the applicant to a public service, but helps the state in strength- ening the economy or saving payment of benefits. While the ramifications are obvious, it is very difficult to integrate services in practice. This would require extensive re-structuring of en- tire organizations, and possibly delineating responsibilities between dif- ferent levels of government, which would mean a long, cumbersome process. Because of the political problems associated with such an ef- fort, reform-oriented managers might shy away from taking it on. The potential of information technology can provide a solution to this problem. Providing electronic services may also help in re-structuring public service (see also Taylor, 1996; Frissen, 1997; Lenk, 1997). It would still require organizational changes within each agency in order to be used effectively and efficiently, but it would allow integration on a front-office level. 2. Filling a Knowledge Gap While interest in One-Stop-Government is growing, little knowledge exists regarding crucial success factors and barriers. Filling this gap is in particular difficult, because One-Stop-Government projects are still comparatively few in number. While there have been some surveys on the North American continent (Seidle, 1995, 117-138; Lips and Frissen, 1997; Intergovernmental Advisory Board, 1998; Bent, Kernaghan et al., 1999; Office of Intergovernmental Solutions, 1999), not many have been conducted in Europe. Lips and Frissen (1997) have covered the Dutch project OL2000 (see also the Dutch national report in this book) and projects in Britain. Recently, the U.S. Office of Intergovernmental Solutions (1999) has referenced some projects in a short-list. Overview 5 To fill the knowledge gap, the working group 3 „ICT and public administration“ of the joint European research action „Governments and Democracy in the Information Age“, which is part of the COST program, decided to commission 11 national reports to survey best practices of One-Stop-Government in each country.1 The key-research questions were defined as follows: • What constitutes the national and state’s vision of ”integrated service delivery” and what prospects does it hold for 21st century public administration? • What constitutes the current practice of ”integrated service deliv- ery” (for instance: what kind of technology is used, at what level of government and/or in what policy sectors have initiatives been started, are there specific target groups of citizens, etc.) and what developments in public administration are to be expected in the near future? • What are barriers to the implementation of ”One-Stop- Government”? • What lessons can be learned from successful and failed projects and how can they be applied in different countries and specific policy sectors?2 Each author of a national report was asked to survey national pol- icy documents in regard to One-Stop-Government and select approxi- mately ten best-practice cases based on the following criteria: • the project must have moved beyond the mere concept phase, e.g. it should be either implemented, or in a pilot phase, or decisions must have been made to implement it; • the project must use IT and include organisational integration or similar administrative reforms; • the project must include transactions, and 1 For more information on the COST program, see URL: www.netmaniacs.com/cost; the COST A14 action “Government and Democracy in the Information Age”, see URL: www.cbs.dk/ departments/cos/gadia.htm, the working group 3 “ICT and Public Ad- ministration”, see URL: www.fgtk.informatik.uni-bremen.de/cost. 2 These questions were also discussed at an international workshop on One-Stop-Government in Bremen from Sept. 30th - Oct. 2nd, 1999. Pro- ceedings will be published separately, see also http://www.fgtk. informatik.uni-bremen.de/cost. One-Stop-Government in Europe 6 • the project must involve at least two distinct units of government, e.g. agencies or departments serving different public functions. These projects were to be described according to • Project history, • Problem area addressed, • Relationship to One-Stop-Government concept, and • Achieved status. Out of this set, approximately three were to be selected for more detailed analysis. Discussion was to focus on crucial areas determining success or failure: • Organizational cooperation, • Integration in existing processes, • Technological infrastructure, • Legal framework, • Funding, • Reciprocal benefits, • Coupling with other initiatives. The following countries were included in the survey, reflecting membership in the COST working group and several invited studies: • Austria, • Belgium, • Denmark, • England and Wales, • Finland, • France, • Germany, • Ireland, • Italy, • Netherlands, and • Spain. The result is a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the current status of One-Stop-Government in Europe. 98 different individual cases were analyzed, between one (Finland) and 16 (Netherlands) per coun- try. The Finnish project, however, covers close to 150 individual one- stop shops. The sixteen Dutch projects are all part of a common initia- Overview 7 tive (OL2000). The status reflected in all case studies is that of Summer 1999.3 The research design provided for a common set of categories for selecting the projects. However, it was difficult to find projects match- ing all criteria in each of the countries. Because researchers followed their own preferences regarding which additional projects to include, an inter-national comparison is very difficult. While one researcher in- cluded non-integrated single-filing projects as an important step to- wards One-Stop-Government, others didn’t. Only in regard to national strategies and general trends is such a comparison across nations possi- ble. What makes the sample valuable is that it aptly reflects the nascent state of the art of One-Stop-Government. By bringing together best practices from eleven nations, a clearer picture on the state of the art of One-Stop-Government in Europe arises. While it is not a representative sample, it does allow for the analysis of • General strategies pursued in each country in relationship to One- Stop-Government; • Common types, delivery channels and policy areas of implemented One-Stop-Government projects; • Current status of One-Stop-Government and • Typical barriers. 4 3. One-Stop-Government definition Before this introduction summarizes some general results from the eleven national reports, a more detailed understanding or what is ex- actly meant by “One-Stop-Government” is in order. One-Stop- Government is a new „Leitbild“ in public administration reform and re- search. It refers to the integration of public services from a citizen’s – or customer of public services‘ - point of view: „Under the one-stop paradigm, all of a customer’s business can be completed in a single 3 We would like to thank all participants in this project for their hard work and observing the many, closely scheduled deadlines. It was a pleasure to work with all of you. 4 While this analysis is based exclusively on the work of all chapter authors, the inferred results are those as assessed by us and we take full responsibility for them. One-Stop-Government in Europe 8 contact, be it face to face or via phone, fax, Internet or other means. One-stop customers do not have to hunt around, call back, or repeatedly explain their situation. One-stop customer service is convenient, acces- sible, and personalized“ (Federal Benchmarking Consortium, 1997, 3). While this goal can be traced farther back in public administration re- form, the potentials of new information and communication technology have recently given new attention to it. Being in this sense a fairly new topic, there is still some confusion as to what the concept and it synonyms „single-window“ (Bent, Kerna- ghan et al., 1999) or „integrated service delivery“ (Office of Intergov- ernmental Solutions, 1999) refer to. Bent, Karnaghan et al. (1999, 3) have suggested to distinguish One-Stop-Government projects according to purposes and structures. The first purpose can be served by „gate- ways“ which provide access to „government information and referral services“. „One-Stop shops“ provide access to „many or all of the services (related and unrelated) provided by government in one con- venient location (physical or electronic)“. And „seamless service“ is geared to specific client groups and integrates „the provision of related government services, within or between governments, to meet a service need that spans multiple jurisdictions“ (ibd.). Caron and Bent (1999) distinguish only between „access“ and „services“ as the purposes of one-stop projects. However, it seems reasonable to differentiate be- tween three types. We will distinguish between „First-Stop“, „Conven- ience Store“ and „True One-Stop“ types of One-Stop-Government, which follow each of the three purposes distinguished by Bent, Kerna- ghan et al. (1999), respectively. • First-Stop: This is typically an information counter which guides the citizen to the relevant services based on his or her needs. The information counter can be realized both in a physical location or “virtually”, e.g. online through a web-site or an electronic kiosk. In a strict sense, this is not „one“-stop-government, because at least a second „stop“ is necessary. • Convenience Store: Here, many different transactional services are located in a single office or on one web-site. The services satisfy the needs of many different concerns of citizens. Convenience store government normally means locally decentralized government and integrates services within the jurisdiction. Also typical for conven- ience store government is that more complex services cannot be Overview 9 delivered here, as they require more service, knowledge, or time to finish. • True one-stop: Like a truck-stop on an interstate which offers gas, repair services, food, and lodging, a true One-Stop-Government service integrates many, most or all services which are necessary to satisfy concerns of specific client groups or in specific events, such as family, job or location changes. These services can be integrated within one or – more advanced – multiple jurisdictions. Another meaning of one-stop service includes the dedication of a single contact person to handle all of a customer’s concerns. A second dimension along which to distinguish One-Stop- Government is the structure of service delivery. Bent, Kernaghan et al. (1999, 4f.) suggest the following six options: • Owner-delivered; • Owner-delivered in a co-located environment; • Shared delivery through integration; • Delegated delivery through a corporate service utility; • Delegated delivery through an Inter-governmental service utility; • Delegated delivery through another service provider (“Multiplex- ing”). As the authors acknowledge, not all One-Stop-Government proj- ects can be ranked into one exclusive category. Especially, the distinc- tion between the second and third structure is difficult: when can the delivery of services of two agencies be called integrated, and when is it only co-located; especially when the aspect of “delegation” is covered by yet another structure? Within the three different structures of dele- gated delivery, the authors distinguish between two kinds of dedicated service providers: those which are part of the government (“corporate” service utility) and those which are not, as private service providers such as the post. They do not find an example for an inter-governmental service utility. Maybe, these are not too different from “corporate serv- ice utitilities”. The author’s main point, however, is very valid: prob- lems increase to the extent with which ownership of service delivery is moved out of the agency, to either public or private service providers (Caron and Bent, 1999, 9f.). More clarification on how to distinguish between the different structures in regard to integrated service-delivery is needed. Caron and Bent (1999) drop “structure” as a category in their classification of single-window cases, and distinguish under the head- ing of “organisation of services” between two kinds of clustering: the- One-Stop-Government in Europe 10 matic and demographic clustering, and also find examples of no- clustering. In this typology, the second dimension, purposes, is then distinguished only in “access”, e.g. referral and information services, and “service”, e.g. actual transactions. In a report focussing on the ICT support of One-Stop-Government as ours, another dimension lends itself for distinction of One-Stop- Government: the technical delivery channel. This dimension is under- lying the different structures of One-Stop-Government Bent, Karna- ghan et al. (1999) have identified. Delivery channels comprise physical locations, web-sites, kiosks and call-centers. • Physical location: One way to deliver One-Stop-Government are traditional office buildings or other – physical – institutions, such as dedicated „government stores“. Service is face to face and often over the counter. Information technology support is needed for the front-line employees, typically to give them access to customer data and information on services of the back-office institutions inte- grated at the physical location. • Web-Site/Internet: The Internet has proven to be a powerful new medium to deliver all kinds of services, including financial transac- tions. Governments can use web-sites to communicate and conduct business with their customers. Web-Sites can be accessed at home, the workplace or public access terminals (PC- or kiosk-based). • Kiosk: Self-service kiosks can also be used to deliver services di- rectly to customers. Interaction with the service provider is fully automated, including payment functions. A one-sto