E-Government: Developing State Communications in a Free Media environment douglas a galbi Federal communications Commission February 11, 2001 Persons freedom to communicate, and their ability to do so effectively, has long been recognized as a crucial component of a society that respects human dignity and provides the conditions for humans to flourish. Government actions that suppress persons'speech and other forms of communication have been rightly subject to scrutiny and challenge Governments have also recognized the importance of affirmative steps to enhance persons opportunities for communications, such steps include improving education and supporting public forums. Communication is not only a personal and political good but also central to economic development. With the growth of the information and communication industries, freedom in communications is becoming increasingly important to persons'entrepreneurial and productive activities While the political and economic importance of personal communications is well- established, government communications has been largely relegated to invisibility in policy discourse. The inevitability of govemment communications is a banality government as a purposeful organization of persons and physical objects(buildings, cars, desks, computers, etc. ) does not exist in a state of symbolic suspension, and even government officials' attempts to be silent can send loud messages. Of course elected and even appointed government officials are keenly concerned about press and televisio coverage, and there are norms and laws concerning how public officials can use their offices as part of their own permanent popularity campaigns. But most of most government institutions are non-partisan and not personalized. Most government communications seeks to provide information, to shun expression of multiple, The opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author. They do not necessarily eflect the views of the Federal Communications Commission, its Commissioners, or any staff other than the author. I am grateful for numerous FCC colleagues who have shared their insights and experience with me. Author's address: dgalbi @fcc. gov; FCC, 445 12th St SW, Washington, DC 20554, USA. This paper is based upon the third part(Section Vi) of a broader paper on convergence; see"Communications PolicymEdiaDevelopmentandConvergence,availableathttp://www.galbithink.org Students of the [us] Constitution endlessly debate whether small groups of Nazis may march. But the march of government, a communicator immensely more powerful than a small group of malcontents, gnored. Few legal theories or concepts of speech in a liberal democracy reach beyond government Yudof, Mark G, When Government Speaks: Politics, Law, and Government Expression in Amerio prises egulation of private speech to consider the government s own involvement in communication enter Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)p. 16. The situation has not changed significantly since Yudof wrote. There has, however, been some important recent work on government communications. See Greene, Abner S,Government of the Good, Vanderbilt Law Review Vol 53, No 1 (Jan 2000); Rose Jonathon W, Making"pictures in our heads": government advertising in Canada(Westport, CN: Praeger, 2000
E-Government: Developing State Communications in a Free Media Environment Douglas A. Galbi1 Senior Economist Federal Communications Commission February 11, 2001 Persons’ freedom to communicate, and their ability to do so effectively, has long been recognized as a crucial component of a society that respects human dignity and provides the conditions for humans to flourish. Government actions that suppress persons’ speech and other forms of communication have been rightly subject to scrutiny and challenge. Governments have also recognized the importance of affirmative steps to enhance persons’ opportunities for communications; such steps include improving education and supporting public forums. Communication is not only a personal and political good but also central to economic development. With the growth of the information and communication industries, freedom in communications is becoming increasingly important to persons’ entrepreneurial and productive activities. While the political and economic importance of personal communications is wellestablished, government communications has been largely relegated to invisibility in policy discourse.2 The inevitability of government communications is a banality: government as a purposeful organization of persons and physical objects (buildings, cars, desks, computers, etc.) does not exist in a state of symbolic suspension, and even government officials’ attempts to be silent can send loud messages. Of course elected and even appointed government officials are keenly concerned about press and television coverage, and there are norms and laws concerning how public officials can use their offices as part of their own permanent popularity campaigns. But most of most government institutions are non-partisan and not personalized. Most government communications seeks to provide information, to shun expression of multiple, 1 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Communications Commission, its Commissioners, or any staff other than the author. I am grateful for numerous FCC colleagues who have shared their insights and experience with me. Author’s address: dgalbi@fcc.gov; FCC, 445 12’th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554, USA. This paper is based upon the third part (Section VI) of a broader paper on convergence; see “Communications Policy, Media Development, and Convergence,” available at http://www.galbithink.org . 2 “Students of the [US] Constitution endlessly debate whether small groups of Nazis may march. But the march of government, a communicator immensely more powerful than a small group of malcontents, is ignored. Few legal theories or concepts of speech in a liberal democracy reach beyond government regulation of private speech to consider the government’s own involvement in communication enterprises.” Yudof, Mark G., When Government Speaks: Politics, Law, and Government Expression in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) p. 16. The situation has not changed significantly since Yudof wrote. There has, however, been some important recent work on government communications. See Greene, Abner S., “Government of the Good,” Vanderbilt Law Review Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan. 2000); Rose, Jonathon W., Making “pictures in our heads”: government advertising in Canada (Westport, CN: Praeger, 2000)
contrasting, or distinctive viewpoints, and to avoid attracting more attention than is necessary for a particular, narrow function The future may benefit from a much broader and more significant role for govemment communications. The development of the Internet potentially can provide ubiquitous, low cost, multi-media communications capabilities. The cost of communicating via likely to rise relative to the cost of more direct channels of communication fom sing is cultivating relationships with journalists, staging media events, and buying adver government to constituents. Governments, while they are likely to outsource to commercial businesses many aspects of their communications needs, will have much better opportunities to retain editorial control in their communications. Cheaper, more capable communications channels provide governments with an important new tool for providing government services, enhancing democratic political discourse, and promoting private economic development. I Government Communications Today Government is an important provider of information and services. The UK E-Minister recently declared, Government information is the largest information resource available to the uK. Government publications include studies, laws, official statistics, transcripts of hearings and proceedings, material submitted for public consideration as part of hearings or proceedings, and a variety of other material. The US Government Printing Office issued about 18000 new titles in 1999, a volume equal to about a quarter of the total number of new books and new editions published in the US.- Routine, widely experienced transactions with government include renewing a driver's license, getting a marriage license or registering a birth, paying taxes and fines, obtaining information about public parks and recreational opportunities, inquiring into laws and legislative developments, and voting Developing a brand is an important part of a communications strategy. Governments have the advantage of distinctive brands with a high level of public awareness. Most persons know the name of the country in which they reside. Flags, anthems, and less prominently, seals, developed as part of building national government brands Government in a geographic area typically has many sub-brands such as national, state and local governments, and associated particular government bodies and agencies Persons'views about government do not relate just to specific products-did the government get me something specific that I wanted- but are typically based on a broad range of emotions, images, and self-images. Thus citizens may strongly fear government intrusions on personal freedom or strongly support government action, without reference to any particular government actions. Such broad, emotion-laden images and associations are characteristic of a well-recognized powerful brand name SeedTiPressRelease2000/602(6September2000);onlineathttp://www.hmso.gov.uk/p2000602.htm See Biennial Report to Congress on the Status of GP0 Access, Appendix C; online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs/aces/biennial/index.htmlForthenumberofbooktitlesseeStatistical Abstract Table 938
2 contrasting, or distinctive viewpoints, and to avoid attracting more attention than is necessary for a particular, narrow function. The future may benefit from a much broader and more significant role for government communications. The development of the Internet potentially can provide ubiquitous, low cost, multi-media communications capabilities. The cost of communicating via cultivating relationships with journalists, staging media events, and buying advertising is likely to rise relative to the cost of more direct channels of communication from government to constituents. Governments, while they are likely to outsource to commercial businesses many aspects of their communications needs, will have much better opportunities to retain editorial control in their communications. Cheaper, more capable communications channels provide governments with an important new tool for providing government services, enhancing democratic political discourse, and promoting private economic development. I. Government Communications Today Government is an important provider of information and services. The UK E-Minister recently declared, “Government information is the largest information resource available to the UK.”3 Government publications include studies, laws, official statistics, transcripts of hearings and proceedings, material submitted for public consideration as part of hearings or proceedings, and a variety of other material. The US Government Printing Office issued about 18000 new titles in 1999, a volume equal to about a quarter of the total number of new books and new editions published in the US.4 Routine, widely experienced transactions with government include renewing a driver’s license, getting a marriage license or registering a birth, paying taxes and fines, obtaining information about public parks and recreational opportunities, inquiring into laws and legislative developments, and voting. Developing a brand is an important part of a communications strategy. Governments have the advantage of distinctive brands with a high level of public awareness. Most persons know the name of the country in which they reside. Flags, anthems, and less prominently, seals, developed as part of building national government brands. Government in a geographic area typically has many sub-brands such as national, state, and local governments, and associated particular government bodies and agencies. Persons’ views about government do not relate just to specific products – did the government get me something specific that I wanted – but are typically based on a broad range of emotions, images, and self-images. Thus citizens may strongly fear government intrusions on personal freedom or strongly support government action, without reference to any particular government actions. Such broad, emotion-laden images and associations are characteristic of a well-recognized, powerful brand name. 3 See DTI Press Release 2000/602 (6 September 2000); online at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/p2000602.htm 4 See Biennial Report to Congress on the Status of GPO Access, Appendix C; online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/biennial/index.html . For the number of book titles, see Statistical Abstract, Table 938
While governments have a strong brand, they typically advertise relatively little. Prior to and during WwI and WWll, the US federal government carried out major advertising campaigns to boost public morale and generate support for the war effort. US federal government advertising is typically focuses on military recruitment(particularly with a professional, non-conscripted armed forces)and postal services. In 1999 US federal government advertising expenditure amounted to $548 million, which is 0.3% of total US advertising spending. The Ad Council, a US non-profit organization that provides advertising on behalf of government and non-government public service campaigns, provided about $1. 2 billion of media spots in 1998. US state and local governments also did some advertising, primarily for lotteries, tourism, and economic development. Over all US government advertising spending in 1999(including the value of donated time and space) probably amounted to less than 1%of total US advertising spending. For comparision, US federal government expenditure amounts to about 20% of GDP. In other high-income countries, governments typically do more advertising and play a larger part in the economy. But government advertising and communications in most high- income countries appears to be small relative to governments' share of goods and services in the over -all The US federal advertising figure is from US government accounting systems. See US General Accounting Office, Federal Advertising Contracts: Agencies Have Discretion in Setting Work Scope and Requirements GAOvGGD-00-203 (Sept 2000)p 3. US government advertising spending does not appear to be consistently defined and tracked. See GAo, Federal Advertising Contracts: Distribution to Small Disadvantaged Businesses, GAO/GGD-00-102R(April 17, 2000)Figure 1, p 4; LNA/Media Watch, Ad S Summary, various years(New York: Competitive Media Reporting, various dates), Table of Leading National Advertisers; Advertising Age, Ad Age Dataplace, 100 Leading National Advertisers, various ears,onthewebathttp://adage.com/dataplace/index.htmlThetotaladvertisingfigureisfromrObert Coen'scompilationSeehttp://www.mccann.com/html/coenreport.html Seehttp://www.adcouncil.org/bodynewsdonatehtmlThefivelargestAdCouncilcampaignsinterms of media value were Crime Prevention($128 million ), Drunk Driving Prevention($117 million), Education Excellence Partnership($95 million), Reduce, Reuse, Recycle($81 million), and 4-H(S64 million) Central government expenditure in high-income countries typically amounts to 35-45%of GDP. See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, Selected World Development Indicators, Table 14 availableonlineathttp://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/report/index.htmnOtethatcentral government expenditure includes transfer payments for social security and health that are economic transactions but are not included in GDP. Government(final)consumption as a share of GDP in high income countries is about 15-20%. See Id. Table 13
3 While governments have a strong brand, they typically advertise relatively little. Prior to and during WWI and WWII, the US federal government carried out major advertising campaigns to boost public morale and generate support for the war effort. US federal government advertising is typically focuses on military recruitment (particularly with a professional, non-conscripted armed forces) and postal services. In 1999 US federal government advertising expenditure amounted to $548 million, which is 0.3% of total US advertising spending.5 The Ad Council, a US non-profit organization that provides advertising on behalf of government and non-government public service campaigns, provided about $1.2 billion of media spots in 1998.6 US state and local governments also did some advertising, primarily for lotteries, tourism, and economic development. Overall US government advertising spending in 1999 (including the value of donated time and space) probably amounted to less than 1% of total US advertising spending. For comparision, US federal government expenditure amounts to about 20% of GDP.7 In other high-income countries, governments typically do more advertising and play a larger part in the economy. But government advertising and communications in most highincome countries appears to be small relative to governments’ share of goods and services in the over-all economy. 5 The US federal advertising figure is from US government accounting systems. See US General Accounting Office, Federal Advertising Contracts: Agencies Have Discretion in Setting Work Scope and Requirements GAO/GGD-00-203 (Sept. 2000) p. 3. US government advertising spending does not appear to be consistently defined and tracked. See GAO, Federal Advertising Contracts: Distribution to Small Disadvantaged Businesses, GAO/GGD-00-102R (April 17, 2000) Figure 1, p. 4; LNA/MediaWatch, Ad $ Summary, various years (New York: Competitive Media Reporting, various dates), Table of Leading National Advertisers; Advertising Age, Ad Age Dataplace, 100 Leading National Advertisers, various years, on the web at http://adage.com/dataplace/index.html . The total advertising figure is from Robert Coen’s compilation. See http://www.mccann.com/html/coenreport.html . 6 See http://www.adcouncil.org/body_news_donate.html . The five largest Ad Council campaigns in terms of media value were Crime Prevention ($128 million), Drunk Driving Prevention ($117 million), Education Excellence Partnership ($95 million), Reduce, Reuse, Recycle ($81 million), and 4-H ($64 million). 7Central government expenditure in high-income countries typically amounts to 35-45% of GDP. See World Bank, World Development Report 2000/2001, Selected World Development Indicators, Table 14; available online at http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/report/index.htm . Note that central government expenditure includes transfer payments for social security and health that are economic transactions but are not included in GDP. Government (final) consumption as a share of GDP in highincome countries is about 15-20%. See Id. Table 13
Many governments are moving aggressively to provide services electronically. U terms such as government online, electronic government, and e-government, governments are seeking to use the Internet to provide services cheaper, faster, conveniently, and more effectively. Singapore's e Citizen Central portal (www.ecitizen.gov.sg)andtheCentrelinkportalinAustralia(www.centrelink.gov.au)are Califomia has recently este amples of these developments. In the US, the state of ablished an impressive e-government portal (my ca. gov ) and the state of Texas has set out an ambitious program for e-government. These uses of the Internet focus on functionality and service provision with a literal, instrumental approach to communications. Attracting and holding attention does not appear to be a significant While governments are moving aggressively to provide services online, the amount o attention that government websites currently attract is relatively small. Table l shows page views among US users at the top non- government and government websites in May 1999. The top 10 government websites taken together had less total page views than a electronic greeting card site, less than a commercial weather site, and less than a pornography site. Whatever one's views about the appropriate scope of government, it seems reasonable that government should be able to attract a larger share of its citizens online attention than such commercial sites See, for example, Government Online, The Commonwealth Government's Strategy(April 2000) [auStralial,http://www.ieg.ibm.com/pdf/governmentonlineStrategypdf;eeuRope2002ActionPlan Government online[European Union),at http://europa.eu.int/comm/informationsociety/eeurope/actionplan/actline3ben.htmContractwiththe future, A vision on the electronic relationship between government and citizen(19 May 2000) Netherlands],athttp://www.ieg.ibmcom/pdf/future.pdfNationalPartnershipforReinventing GovernmentE-gov(April2000)[unitedStates],athttp://www.npr.gov/library/visionddbl.htm 9 See e-Texas. Report of the e-Texas Commission(20 December 2000), online at http://www.e-texas.org/report
4 Many governments are moving aggressively to provide services electronically. Under terms such as government online, electronic government, and e-government, governments are seeking to use the Internet to provide services cheaper, faster, more conveniently, and more effectively.8 Singapore’s eCitizen Central portal (www.ecitizen.gov.sg) and the Centrelink portal in Australia (www.centrelink.gov.au) are among the early, important examples of these developments. In the US, the state of California has recently established an impressive e-government portal (my.ca.gov), and the state of Texas has set out an ambitious program for e-government.9 These uses of the Internet focus on functionality and service provision with a literal, instrumental approach to communications. Attracting and holding attention does not appear to be a significant goal. While governments are moving aggressively to provide services online, the amount of attention that government websites currently attract is relatively small. Table 1 shows page views among US users at the top non-government and government websites in May, 1999. The top 10 government websites taken together had less total page views than a electronic greeting card site, less than a commercial weather site, and less than a pornography site. Whatever one’s views about the appropriate scope of government, it seems reasonable that government should be able to attract a larger share of its citizens’ online attention than such commercial sites. 8 See, for example, Government Online, The Commonwealth Government’s Strategy (April 2000) [Australia], http://www.ieg.ibm.com/pdf/GovernmentOnlineStrategy.pdf ; eEurope 2002 Action Plan: Government online [European Union], at http://europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/eeurope/actionplan/actline3b_en.htm ; Contract with the future, A vision on the electronic relationship between government and citizen (19 May 2000) [Netherlands], at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/pdf/future.pdf ; National Partnership for Reinventing Government, E-Gov (April 2000) [United States], at http://www.npr.gov/library/VisionddB1.htm . 9 See e-Texas, Report of the e-Texas Commission (20 December 2000), online at http://www.e-Texas.org/report/
Table 1 Web Traffic Among US Users, May 1999 Address Site Type Rank Page views」 Top 10 Non-Government Sites msn. com content community 19.837,70 28,289,934 microsoft. com software company 31,392,064 lebay.com online auction 41,355412 excite. com search engine 51,354463 aol.com content community 61,302,714 altavista. com search engine 71,152,986 go.com portal 8 897,919 geocities.comonlinecommunity 9 811,574 ycos.com search engine 670455 Top 10 Government Sites nasa. gov space exploration 140 70.194 nih. gov health research 58,260 taxes 41.4、 state government 360 30,333 weather 404 27,384 c go ry 412 27,197 usps. gov postal service 440 25563 ustreas gov treasury 502 22608 ed. gov education 530 21,519 wa. gov state government 705 17,093 Total Top 10 non-government sites 27,065,22 Total Top 10 government sites 341.601 ource:Alexa Research Top 1000 Sites. See http://www.alexaresearch.com/clientdir/products/topwebsitesphp I. Increasing Attention to Government The inter-relationship of money, media time, and politics is widely considered to be a major challenge to inclusive, responsive political culture and effective democratic government. European countries that require broadcasters to provide free time to political candidates face increasing regulatory challenges as the number of broadcast outlets increases, as traditional relationships between government and media change, and as cross-media competition increases. In the US, which does not require broadcasters provide free time to candidates, the need to raise money for political advertising is a central aspect of elections. About 75% of US presidential campaign funds go for political advertising, and about 90% of that advertising spending is for network television
5 Table 1 Web Traffic Among US Users, May 1999 Address Site Type Rank Page Views Top 10 Non-Government Sites msn.com content community 1 9,837,705 yahoo.com portal 2 8,289,934 microsoft.com software company 3 1,392,064 ebay.com online auction 4 1,355,412 excite.com search engine 5 1,354,463 aol.com content community 6 1,302,714 altavista.com search engine 7 1,152,986 go.com portal 8 897,919 geocities.com online community 9 811,574 lycos.com search engine 10 670,455 Top 10 Government Sites nasa.gov space exploration 140 70,194 nih.gov health research 189 58,260 irs.gov taxes 272 41,450 ca.gov state government 360 30,333 noaa.gov weather 404 27,384 loc.gov national library 412 27,197 usps.gov postal service 440 25,563 ustreas.gov treasury 502 22,608 ed.gov education 530 21,519 wa.gov state government 705 17,093 Total Top 10 non-government sites 27,065,226 Total Top 10 government sites 341,601 Source: Alexa Research Top 1000 Sites. See http://www.alexaresearch.com/clientdir/products/top_websites.php II. Increasing Attention to Government The inter-relationship of money, media time, and politics is widely considered to be a major challenge to inclusive, responsive political culture and effective democratic government. European countries that require broadcasters to provide free time to political candidates face increasing regulatory challenges as the number of broadcast outlets increases, as traditional relationships between government and media change, and as cross-media competition increases. In the US, which does not require broadcasters to provide free time to candidates, the need to raise money for political advertising is a central aspect of elections. About 75% of US presidential campaign funds go for political advertising, and about 90% of that advertising spending is for network television