Solutions of e-government in some European states

1. Solutions of e-government in some European states a comparison of Germany, Turkey and Hungary

2. Germany

3. Germany • Federal Republic of Germany • Consisting of 16 provinces (Land – pl.: Länder) • Provinces have a very high degree of autonomy • each Province has separate constitution, parliament and ministries • Germanycan mostly be seen as a unit only from the outside and in its international affairs • e-government solutions differ from Province to Province

4. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • Baden-Württemberg is the 3rd largest Province in Germany for the number of inhabitants, for territory and also in lights of economic performance. • This Province produces14,5% of Germany’s GDP alone • Unemployment is as good as unknown (about 4% - with this rate B-W is the second amongst the provinces, superseded only by Bavaria with 3,8%) • this Province is one of the main centres for Europe's economy • headquarters for companies like Mercedes-Benz, Porsche or Bosch • these economic circumstances obviously call for e-government solutions

5. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • www.service-bw.de is the central portal of the Province of Baden-Württemberg • Similar in many aspects to Hungary’s central portal: https://magyarorszag.hu • Istruly a „portal” • people can only manage a small part of their cases right here, but starting from here, one can reach most of the administrative websites of the Province • from the German site, one can literally reach all of the websites of all of the public administration institutions in Baden-Württemberg (so central and local websites too) • while Hungary’s website only covers websites of the central administration • has been in operation since 2003 • Hungary’s portal has been in operation since 2005

6. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • offers the services of about 9000 public administration institutions, totally covering the Province’s central and in about 95% local administration as well • services for citizens and for enterprises are separated • Servicesappear firstly in an alphabetical order; but the site also has a „free word” and a thematic search engine.

7. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • Services provided for citizens have two logical levels. • On the first level, there are 50 groups of cases (called “situations of life” by the website); • these are expanded in more than 800 concrete cases on the second logical level. • These contain the necessary data (contact information, opening hours, procedural issues, and in most cases also the form(s) required in each procedure).

8. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • Some of the services of the portal may only be used after registration. • The possibility to register and to form a personal surface for managing cases is called „my service-bw” („mein service-bw” in German). • This module has been a part of the site since 2004.

9. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • The site is multi-lingual – in contrary to the Hungarian and Turkish sites. • In reality, the site is only partly multi-lingual. • According to the opening surface, it is available both in English and French besides German, but some parts of it are not available in any other language, than German • (it’s the situation for e.g. with the surface for registration).

10. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • The site offers two different types of registration (and of course login, after registration): „simple” and „authenticated”. • „Simple” registration is only choosing a username and a password, and giving the name of the person and providing an e-mail address. • This comes with no authentication at all, therefore no services, to which „authenticated” registration and/or login is required, may be used by this. • This gives possibilities: • to order the newsletter of the site, • to comment in the part of the site called “Ideas, questions, critics?”, • and also gives the chance to personalize the portal in some aspects (for e.g. if citizens provide their place of residence, the portal will mostly show news from that area).

11. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • To actually manage a case • when the person’s identification data are also forwarded to the administrative authority in question, • as well, as the person has the chance to send documents (securely, authenticated, and in a legally binding way) to the authority in question, by the help of the portal) • citizens must have an “authenticated” registration.

12. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • The solution, where one has the chance to form a personal administration surface, is to be seen as partly level 5 • only partly, because it only means, that the site recognises the user, and some information is generated according to the data provided by the user • (for e.g. according to his/her place of residence), • but even here, there’s no possibility to pre-fill the downloaded forms with any data. • This possibility is included in „authenticated” registration (and login) too, of course.

13. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • Other than that, using „simple” registration (and login) one may only • read about procedures • and download the necessary forms (level 2), • while using „authenticated” registration (and login),one may • also send the documents back (forward them online) (level 3). • In this latter case – if it’s manageable technologically and / or legally – the client may also • receive decisions online • and perform the necessary money-transfers online too (level 4).

14. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • “Authenticated” registration may only be done online, by means of • an electronic signature (this way is also recognised in Hungary), • or – since December 2010, as a pilot project – by means of the new type of the German ID-card (which contains a chip with an electronic signature, usable also in public administrational affairs).

15. www.service-bw.de(Baden-Württemberg) • “Authenticated” registration and login to www.service-bw.de are similar to Hungary’s „Client Gate”, at least concerning the following: • both portals recognize the user; • on both portals, the user (the client) has the chance to upload and/or forward documents, which may have a legal effect (on a secure channel); • in case of both portals, if the user (client) who entered in an authenticated way, steps on to other sites (connected to the systems of each country) from the portals, the user (client) remains authenticated on those sites too (one stop government).

16. D-115(Federal solution) • Telephone is still a very important way of C2G contact in reality. • One of the most frequently used means of C2G communication. • This is so, even though most of the clients don’t know the phonenumbers of the public administration institutions, and they have to search for them first. • The idea of a standard calling number for the whole of the public administration emerged in Germany first at the end of the year 2006. • Hungary’s similar short number for the public administration (189 then, 1818 now) had already been running for over a year then. • Hungary’s short number only offers solutions and services of the central administration, Germany’s short number covers the whole of public administration (so central, provincial and local level too).

17. D-115(Federal solution) • The project actually started its operation in March 2009, and the number of Germans, able to reach D-115 has raised rapidly eversince. • It started its operation with only a handful of larger cities throughout Germany (including Berlin), and 14 federal public administration organisations were attached at first. • The pilotproved to be so successful, that a lot of cities have attached themselves to it, out of free will. • Meanwhile, the whole of the central public administration was attached to D-115 at the end of 2011, and now there are only 3 Provinces in whole Germany, where D-115 is still not available at all. (These are: Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Thuringia.) • No community is forced to enter D-115, all the participants enter out of their own will.

18. D-115(Federal solution) • Anyone dialling D-115 from the areas of service gets connected to the appropriate colleague of the appropriate public administration organisation. • Calls are taken by a professional within 30 seconds in 75% of all the calls, • and the callers get answers to their questions already during the first call in 55% of the calls. • In case the question can not be answered right away, the D-115 service centre returns to the caller within 24 hours during office hours of D-115, via e-mail, phone or fax, according to the choice of the client. • D-115 (opposite to the Hungarian solution) doesn’t have a federal centre, but federal, provincial and local centres are connected instead.

19. D-115(Federal solution) • D-115 started with a service portfolio, which contains the most frequent questions that usually emerge by different levels of public administration. • A so-called “TOP-100” list was compiled from them; • having ready made answers to these questions is also a prerequisite for a public administration institution to be allowed to attach itself to D-115.

20. D-115(Federal solution) • D-115 connects clients to the public administration, but also fulfils the role of a “filter”. • In case the question can be answered by the colleague of the D-115 centre, there’s no need to transfer the call to a given public administration organisation. • This quickens the way clients get answers, but also takes a lot of workload from the public administration organisations themselves.

21. De-Mail(Federal solution) • Used to be a pilot project on a very small scale, • it was “tested” only in the city of Friedrichshafen in Baden-Württemberg, which only has about 60.000 inhabitants • Test phase lasted between 9th October 2009 and 31st March 2010. • German Federal Parliament was convinced that De-Mail is a good initiation, and laid down its legal rules in an Act, that required 2/3 majority. • This Act came effective on 3rd May 2011. • De-Mail services are available to any German citizen.

22. De-Mail(Federal solution) • Based on the recognition, that traditional e-mails reach the end of their capabilities, when • the message has to be trusted and/or • the sender has to be authenticated and/or • the attachments have to reach the recipient in a secure way • or at least so, that any changes since the sending have to be recognisable. • De-Mail is a solution for all these problems.

23. De-Mail(Federal solution) • De-Mail is such a communications solution that • secures the messages to reach the recipient securely • and in a logged way, • and the sender and the recipient are also obviously identified. • Users can access a service for some extra charge, where they • receive an official certificate on sending the letter (and its circumstances), • as well as on the facts, that the recipient has • received and • opened the letter.

24. De-Mail(Federal solution) • De-Mail and Hungary’s Client Gate are similar solutions (similar in the level of security and aims), with 3 major differences: • De-Mail is based on the technology, the method and the idea of e-mail (while the Client Gate and „authenticated” registration and login to www.service-bw.de are based on other technical backgrounds); • De-Mail may be used not only and solely in G2C and in G2G contacts, but in any relation, where a traditional e-mail could also be used, this way it’s practically putting electronic signature aside; • De-Mail is not a development of the state administration (like the other 2 solutions). The idea came from the Federal Ministry of Interior of Germany, which later got to be the leader of this project, and has been responsible for it the whole time, but actual development and the provision of the service is done by private firms – of course, these firms have to undergo serious scrutiny, before they get the chance to provide the service.

25. De-Mail(Federal solution) • To use De-Mail, one doesn’t need any special hardware or software (just like in the case of Client Gate, or www.service-bw.de), only a computer with Internet-connection. • De-Mail is only that much different from traditional e-mail services, that one has to sign a contract – in person – with a provider.

26. De-Mail(Federal solution) • For start, one may open a provisional post-box (which can only be used to manage cases on a restricted basis, and is operative only for a restricted amount of time). • The client thenhas to print the online offer. With this at hand one has to go to the client service centre of the chosen provider, and has to identify himself/herself, and sign the contract there, in person – just like in the case of opening an online bank-account. • After successful authentication, the post-box is permanently registered, and from there on, all its functions may be used without any restrictions, and the post-box of the registered user may be opened from anywhere around the world, from a computer with internet connection.

27. De-Mail(Federal solution) • In Hungary, only natural persons may own a Client Gate, but legal entities (corporations) may also have a De-Mail post-box in Germany. • In Hungary, public administrational institutions have their own version of Client Gate (called: Authority Gate). • Administrative bodies also have the very same kind of De-Mail box, like anybody else (may that be a natural person, or a legal entity).

28. De-Mail(Federal solution) • Login to De-Mail (after successful registration) may be done at „normal” and „high” security level. „Normal” login is simply a username and a password – the very same method used to access Hungary’s Client Gate. • „High” security level authentication in Germany is: • „normal” login + a single-time usable password (sent to the client for e.g. in an SMS) • „normal” login + some chip-cards, which have authentication functions. • In case of „high” security login, knowledge based authentication (username + password) is combined with possession based authentication.

29. Electronic signature in Germany • Electronic signature could not disperse in Germany either (as it couldn’t disperse in Hungary too), it is not able to fulfil its (desired) leading role in electronic contacts. • It may be presumed, that the De-Mail will be a much more favoured solution in the future, than “authenticated” registration on (and login to) www.service-bw.de – especially, because the latter solution is only available in one Province, while the other is available in whole of Germany. • Electronic signature is accepted in practise in Germany, but since there is no federal law, stating that it is equal to traditional, paper based signature, its usage may be excluded without any trouble. • Furthermorethe new German ID-card (with a chip on it, containing electronic signature, which may be used in electronic administrative cases) is not popular amongst German citizens. Therefore the new type of German ID-card (also including electronic signature) is not likely to be widely dispersed in Germany in the next (about) 10 years.

30. Turkey

31. Turkey • Republic of Turkey • is a unitarian state (just like Hungary, but opposite to Germany) • lying in Europe in a very small part (3%), whilst lying predominantly in south-west Asia (97%) • member of NATO (since 1952) and started negotiations about joining the EU in 2005 • its legal system – therefore its public administrational system too – are standardised for the whole country; just like in Hungary, but in contrary to Germany

32. Turkey • The system of the Turkish public administration ispretty complex, and often not too transparent. • On the highest level we find the regions (but these only mean geographical division in Turkey, they have no administrational functions and / or organs). • The country is divided into 81 provinces, • which are further divided into zones, • which are even further divided into so-called “budjac”-s and “kasaba”-s, • and these are further divided again into villages and farms, as administrational units. • Besides all this, one can find so-called “semt”-s (part of a city) and “mahalle”-s (district) inside of towns. • All these administrational units are often (but not always) subordinated to each other (fully or partly), but all have distinct administrative functions on their own too.

33. Turkey • It is hard to give unified e-government solutions under these circumstances, but Turkish government is trying to do this rather hard job. • Most of the Turkish citizens – just like in Hungary, but again in contrary to Germany – don’t know the e-government solutions, or are not educated well enough to use them.

34. Turkey • Turkish government has dealt with issues regarding e-government since 2003. • First there was the project called “E-transformation of Turkey” (2005), • and then the “Action plan for an information society” (2006), • which also consisted the idea of the so-called “E-Turkey Gate”. • This became accessible in 2008.

35. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • The portal is the official, central website of Turkey, similar in many aspects to Hungary’s https://magyarorszag.huportal. • Its aim is to provide electronic government solutions quickly, effectively and safely to citizens and enterprises too. • The portal used to be available (at least partly) also in English a few years ago, but now it’s monolingual (Turkish only) – for no obvious reasons. • It also functions as a “one stop government” window to almost all of the services of central public administration, providing the possibility to get informed and download forms (very much like the portals of the other 2 countries).

36. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • Citizens can get access to an information service, • access to electronic public services, • an area to manage cases regarding financial support from the state; • they can also find links to governmental bodies, • they can issue announcements • and read daily news. • They also have the possibility to upload data and forms necessary to manage public administration cases.

37. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • Identification may be done 3 ways on E-Turkey Gate: • using a username + a password; • using a username + a password + a single-time usable code, sent to the user in SMS; • using electronic signature.

38. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • Users – in order to obtain a username and a password – have to act personally, and identify themselves using their ID-cards. • The username is always the ID-card number of the given citizen – other usernames are not usable / eligible • and the password can only be obtained at post offices (so not by public administration institutions, like in Hungary, but neither at the client centres of providers, like in Germany).

39. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • Users are obliged to change their passwords once every 3 months. • In case they forget it, they have to pay an administration fee, equalling about 5 € is Turkish lira. • Other than that, the services provided by the portal are normally free of charge, but individual institutions are allowed to charge their services.

40. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • In case of non-registered users, • descriptions of cases, • basic pieces of information • and forms are available through • 13 main categories, • which are divided into 71 sub-categories. • Each category and sub-category is linked also to the responsible central governmental body (if such exists). • Altogether 25 central governmental institutions are linked to the portal, 9 out of which are ministries.

41. The E-Turkey Gate,https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/ • The Turkish site offers services on all service levels of electronic public administration (2 to 5), but this statement is only true with serious restrictions. • Level 4 (transaction) is only accessible as a pilot project, only in Ankara and Istanbul • and level 5 (personalisation) only means the same as in the case of Hungary and Germany, meaning that the site recognises the registered users and some pieces of information are assembled according to this, but pre-filling forms with the data of the user is still not available. • In case of non-registered users, the site only offers level 2; meaning that the descriptions of the procedures can be read, and forms can be downloaded (this is also similar to the solutions of Germany and Hungary).

42. 160 • There is a short number to the public administration in Turkey too (160), • but it is not a real service for the time being (not like Germany’s 115 or Hungary’s 1818). • Turkey’s short number only provides help and technical support in technical questions connected to the central portal itself, and in case of questions regarding requesting a password to it. • No other questions (regarding for e.g. actual administrative issues) may be put.

43. Comparison from an overview

44. Comparison from an overview • The totality of public administration is covered in Germany (at least on the B-W portal, and also by D-115, wherever it’s available). • Hungary’s portal doesn’t aim to cover the totality of public administration, it’s only a portal for the central government; on the other hand, local communities also mostly have some kinds of websites, but those have to be searched individually on the Internet. • Turkish portal doesn’t even cover the complete central administration and local communities scarcely have websites – but this is due to the fact that on a large part of Turkish local communities there isn’t even a computer, let alone Internet.

45. Comparison from an overview • All the countries have some kind of a portal, • but services provided by them differ largely. • All countries have a short number to the public administration; • being only a “mock-solution” in Turkey. • The biggest problem with both the Hungarian and the Turkish sites is that they both lack foreign language versions (surfaces).

46. Comparison from an overview • Portals may be used with or without authentication in all countries. • For the purposes of getting information, it’s enough to only open the portals themselves, • but if someone actually wants to manage a case, they have to be registered. • In lights of technological details of authentication: the spectrum is wide. • Hungary seems to be the most allowing in this aspect, accepting all the methods technology can provide – even the not so widespread / not so well known biometric authentication. • Hungary is followed in this aspect by Turkey and Germany, where the biometric solution is excluded.

47. UNO’s yearly survey regarding e-readiness,e-participation and e-government • The e-participation index of Turkey is an average of 52,8%, which gives Turkey the 80th place amongst the states of the world in 2012. • Hungary is the 31st with an average e-participation index of 72% • Germany has the 17th place with 80,8% in 2012 • If we take only Europe into account • Germany is the 10th • Hungary is the 21st • and Turkey is not a part of Europe according to the UNO. (UNO classifies Turkey as a Western-Asian country.)