Transforming the Part of Local Services in e- Services (MK0078)

Transforming the part of local services in e- services

XVIII. Local Open Government: Introducing E-Services

Commitment 6.4: Transforming the Part of Local Services in e-services

Commitment Text: 6.4. Transforming e-services at local level by:

a)    Analysis of the possibilities for [transforming some] local services into e-services;

b)    Preparation of criteria and create a list of priority services to be transformed […];

c)     Designing interactive web solutions;

d)    Assessing the degree of efficiency and effectiveness in terms of preparation and delivery of services in quantitative and qualitative terms;

e)    Analysis of [use] of existing capabilities of mobile phones and the number of users of these services to better access to information and use of local services;

f)      Analysis of local services as a whole or their segments can be delivered through the development and application of appropriate applications;

g)    Programme on development of priority applications for mobile phones connected to local services [and assessing degree of their utilization…].

Responsible institution(s):  Ministry of Local Self-Government

Supporting institution(s): UNDP; Municipalities of Karpos, Tetovo, Veles, Dojran and Chesinovo-Obleshevo; Association of Local Government Units of the Republic of Macedonia – ZELS; MISA

Start Date: 1/7/2014   End Date: 31/12/2016

Commitment aim

This commitment sought to transform e-services at the local level, but the language was not clear in terms of its deliverables and areas of service.

Status

Midterm: Substantial

At the midterm, substantial progress had been made on this commitment. The Ministry of Local Government, with the support of UNDP, prepared a draft study of local e-services. The recommendations are being used for the program for sustainable local development and decentralisation in 2015-2020.^{[Note 144: MISA, Second Quarterly Report, 14-15.]}  

For more information, please see the 2014-2016 IRM midterm report.

End of term: Substantial

The government’s self-assessment report contained no additional information on the progress of this commitment. After reviewing the websites of the responsible institutions and all municipalities, the IRM researcher found that a common platform for e-services in the construction industry was created. Specifically, the Association of Local Self-Governments and the Ministry of Transport created an e-service for construction permits as one of the key competencies of municipalities.^{[Note 145: [www.gradezna-dozvola.mk].]}

The IRM researcher also found that some municipalities have introduced platforms that improve access to information about individual tax debt,^{[Note 146: For example, Municipality of Veles: http://edanoci.veles.gov.mk/; Municipality of Bitola: http://obitola.no-ip.org:8080/.  ]} or enhance citizens’ participation by developing their complaints’ systems.^{[Note 147: For example, Municipality of Veles: http://bit.ly/2d7J3yS; Municipality of Tetovo: http://www.itetove.com/index.php/mk/;  Municipality of Bitola: http://obitola.no-ip.org/Public/Public.aspx. ]} One of the next priority areas for the development of services seems to be environmental permits, but local governments should consider how the service could be designed to also contribute to openness.

Did it open government?

Access to information: Marginal

The commitment attempted to transform e-services at the local level, and was made at a time when local e-services were insufficiently developed. How this transformation would open government was not clear, and could not be assessed from the text of the commitment.

During the first cycle of implementation, the government conducted a study on e-services to determine which services were preferred by municipalities. One was construction. This resulted in the implementation of the online platform described above. While this was a first step in improving services at the local level, it did not provide for new information. The platform allowed for submission of requests for different construction permits. While this was a positive step in improving service provision, it is still unclear how it improves government openness. When an e-government commitment is made, it should discuss how it enhances at least one of the OGP values: access to information, public participation, or public accountability.^{[Note 148: Open Government Partnership, IRM Procedural Manual V2.0 (Washington DC: 2014), 32.]}

In this case, some services promoted access to information (tax depth, cadaster plans) or stimulated civic participation (complaints system). However, those services are now available to several municipalities, thus due to a very limited scope. Therefore, the IRM researcher considers this only a marginal improvement in both access to information and civic participation.

Carried forward?

The commitment has been revised and included in the new action plan (now commitment 6.8). It focuses specifically on civic participation, and aims to develop e-services for citizens’ complaints and reporting problems in utility services. The new e-service should allow citizens to track the progress of their requests, and potentially improve accountability.