e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

obtain (38%), followed by funds for organisation-specific projects (21%) and funds for the maintenance of
on-going e-government activities (12%).
101. It does not seem to be a coincidence that funding for cross-administration projects is both the
lowest priority for organisations in the central administration and seen by many as the most difficult to
obtain. This result is not surprising, given the general reluctance expressed by ministries and agencies to
engage in cross-administration e-government projects because of lack of incentives, ownership and funding
mechanisms (see Part 4.5.3, “Ensuring central co-ordination”).
102. Some 41% of respondents indicated that they funded some of their e-government activities
through joint funding with other public organisations. The share was somewhat higher for ministries (50%)
than for central agencies (37%). Joint funding, however, does not seem to be closely linked to integrated
public administration online services. Only one of six ministries and two of 11 agencies that reported joint
funding also provide advanced online services for which transactions or data sharing are possible and
which are integrated with other public organisations. While one would expect the organisations that
provide more advanced online services to be the most interested in finding cross-administration funding,
survey results did not indicate that this was the case. Only a third of advanced organisations have accessing
funds for joint e-government projects as a priority.
103. Jointly funded projects are more likely to involve one agency providing service to another rather
than supporting the provision of an integrated service. Instead of collaboration to produce interactive
services, it suggests an “all or nothing” approach based on the organisation’s claim to a set of services or
constituencies.
104. Integrated services with multiple funding sources, such as those involving e-engagement or eenabling
mechanisms, such as joint portals or the government intranet, seem to be the exception rather than
the rule. While the fact that many organisations did report some joint funding seems to indicate that
mechanisms are in place to allow agencies to share funding, it seems that they are not using these
mechanisms in support of truly integrated projects.
Key Points - 15
x While joint funding of IT projects seems fairly common, the projects only rarely seem to
support truly integrated services, and instead tend to be based on one agency providing
electronic services on another’s behalf. While this is not a problem in and of itself, it raises
the question of the extent to which programme rules and approaches are being coordinated.
Spending flexibility
105. New public management reforms have given agencies greater flexibility for spending their funds.
Since this is also true for local and regional governments, however, some agencies have indicated that their
ability to improve services has diminished when service delivery responsibilities are shared with local and
regional partners. In particular, the loss of the ability to earmark funds, but also to set standards or coordinate
services, has reduced the tools available for improving vertical integration of services (see
Box 3.2).
48