E-government, the use of technology to streamline government functions, never was a panacea, regardless of what some technology evangelists said. But technology can still be of benefit if used wisely, as some public officials have already discovered.

This topic was explored by Colorado Governor Bill Owens, along with representatives from Cisco, Oracle, and eRepublic, on December 11th, 2001 at a Pacific Research Institute/TechNet event on e-government. Governor Owens outlined some of the ways Colorado is using technology to reduce government waste and provide better information to citizens.

For instance, Colorado’s state government has set standards for K–12 education and makes available 250 pieces of data on each school that parents can access online. Parents can also use the Internet to compare and select a new school for their children if they feel their school is not performing at the level it should.

There are other ways that e-government initiatives can benefit individuals too. Renewing drivers licenses online, thereby avoiding the dreaded DMV, is one of the many possibilities. Government sites that facilitate research on public data are also a good idea.

Technology can help America fight terrorists through databases that keep track of which foreigners are in the country and which have left, as well as comparing those names to lists of known terrorists. This is something that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) should have completed long ago and will, one would hope, adopt soon.

But not all e-government initiatives are good and, as with any new initiatives, policymakers should be careful to implement only aspects of the technology that show clear benefits.

Technology is a tool, neither good nor bad in itself. How technology is used will be the measure of success for any e-government program. For instance, if e-government becomes an excuse to expand government rather than shrink it, as was the case with a proposal from Senators Joseph Lieberman and Conrad Burns last year, the promised efficiencies from e-government will evaporate.

It’s no accident that countries like Singapore and Canada are now leading the pack in e-government initiatives. Intrusive government in the offline world is bound to translate to the same in the online world.

A number of individuals have argued that government should “innovate, not just automate,” but this catchy slogan could lead down a dangerous path. Innovation sounds like a wonderful idea — until it is used as an excuse to create unnecessary departments, hire more assistants, compete with the private sector, and generally expand the reach of government into citizen’s lives. At that point, it is no longer a benefit.

For example, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) proposed “EZ Tax Filing project” competes with the Quicken TurboTax tax preparation software produced by the private firm Intuit Inc. This reverse privatization doesn’t make sense when the goal of government is to help foster a good business climate, not compete in it.

It’s also important to minimize the blurring of lines between public and private enterprises. The federal government’s web portal, Firstgov.gov, may go too far by linking to, and thereby favoring, private enterprises like Ryder for transportation services, or Kididdles, a Canadian business that sells music to kids. Policymakers should seek to avoid this type of government encroachment into the private marketplace.

Further, it is unlikely that e-government initiatives will usher in a new age of democracy. For instance, some have argued that new technologies, such as email correspondence and online voting, will make government more responsive. But that will only happen to the extent that politicians and their staff are willing to make it happen. Technology alone will not make politicians more forthright or communicative, nor will it automatically make voters more informed and active.

As Mark Boyer, Cisco’s director of Internet Business Solutions, has pointed out, the barriers to transforming government are more human than technical in nature. “Leadership is the single most important thing,” he said. This makes sense given public choice theory that predicts that government bureaucrats will always act according to their incentive structure, regardless of what technology they are using.

No one would argue that government should lag behind the technological curve. But the use of high technology does not translate to good policy in every case. This year, policy-makers should resolve to improve quality of life and government by tempering high-tech possibilities with careful thought and respect for the rights of citizens.

Sonia Arrison is director of the Center for Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. She can be reached at sarrison@pacificresearch.org.