OECD Peer Review of E-Government in Denmark - ePractice.eu

to eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on citizens and businesses. Currently, formal
responsibilities for work on administrative simplification and e-government have been assigned,
respectively, to the ministry of Finance’s Division for Better Regulation and Digital Task Force.
Although there has been ongoing informal co-operation between these two groups, interviews showed
that better results could be achieved by strengthening and formalising this collaboration, with potential
for benefits both in the further development of e-government and the reduction or elimination of the
administrative burdens. In particular, the design and results of the Division for Better Regulation’s
measurement of administrative burdens could be better integrated with the ongoing work of the Task
Force in the areas of: 1) identifying and overcoming regulatory barriers to e-government; 2) defining
indicators to measure e-government benefits; and 3) identifying relevant e-government challenges and
opportunities to address jointly with other government organisations.
Reducing administrative burden is a subject of significant concern for the Government, which
reported to the Parliament on this issue in early 2005. The report was based on the AMVAB (Activitybased
Measurement of Companies’ Administrative Burdens) model developed by the Netherlands,
which will help Danish ministries to measure the impacts of administrative burdens. The
Government’s goal is to reduce administrative burdens by up to 25% by 2010. The Government
recognises that legal barriers to e-government must be further reduced in order to achieve this goal.
However, as noted above, questions remain about lawmakers’ ability to draft e-friendly laws and
regulations; some laws passed in 2003/04 created new barriers to digitisation. To help address this
problem, the Ministry of Finance is now developing a “digital toolbox” to help lawmakers prepare
e-friendly legislation.
Legal and regulatory barriers are not just an impediment to e-government at the State government
level. The OECD survey shows that almost 60% of respondents felt that an important barrier to
e-government arises from regulatory and legislative barriers to collaboration between different levels
of government, or with the private sector and civil society organisations.
These concerns may indicate inadequacy of the existing legislative framework in terms of
supporting collaboration across government. However, according to interviews with officials, although
legislative and regulatory obstacles to collaboration across levels of government still exist in certain
areas, they do not generally present a major barrier for e-government in Denmark. Where they do
exist, they are being tackled by relevant authorities in connection with implementation of the
Structural Reform. For example, although they share the same physical offices to deliver their
services, the Labour Market Board and municipalities have experienced regulatory barriers to
accessing and sharing information and systems. These barriers are being addressed through the
Government’s proposal to enact a “Service Centre Act” (part of the regulatory package connected to
implementation of the Structural Reform), which will enable establishment and operation of “local
service centres” in municipalities. The Act will prescribe rules for the proposed service centres’
authority to deliver services on behalf of other public authorities, including rules for exchange of
personal data.
Regulatory barriers do not seem to represent a major obstacle to organisations in their
collaborations with the private sector. Less than 30% of survey respondents identified this as an
obstacle to establishing partnerships with the private sector.
Lack of legal recognition of e-government processes was identified as an important barrier by
more than 50% of survey respondents. In light of the current legislative changes enabling electronic
communication and the success of the eDay initiatives (see Chapter 4 and Case Study 2), concerns in
this area may reflect the existence of a perceived rather than a real barrier. To the extent that it is
perceptual, this could indicate a need for more communication about the results of the legislative
45