In the 1990s, many governments began to use information and communications technologies, especially Internet applications, to improve the efficiency and economy of government operations and to provide their citizens, the business community, and government officials with information and services. The goal of e-government is to become entrenched in the everyday lives of these people so that they become reliant on Internet access to government. Comparative Perspectives on E-government draws upon the expertise of its contributors, who have conducted research and policy analyses related to government information policy and e-government, and who have published previously in these areas. The focus of coverage is on five countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and topical issues such as the digital divide, the balance between access and security in the aftermath of 9-11, trust in government, the citizen's perspective on e-government, and the evaluation of government Web sites. The book addresses the need to understand the phenomenon of e-government better_its development, mission and goals, success in achieving those goals, and future plans_extending an inquiry to both developed and developing countries. An additional need for detailed cross-country analyses and comparisons, introduced here, is also addressed.

The "digital divide" is a term that has been used to characterize a gap between "information haves and have-nots," or in other words, between those Americans who use or have access to telecommunications and information technologies and those who do not. One important subset of the digital divide debate concerns high-speed Internet access and advanced telecommunications services, also known as broadband. Broadband is provided by a series of technologies (e.g., cable, telephone wire, fiber, satellite, wireless) that give users the ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds far greater than traditional "dial-up" Internet access over telephone lines. Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas. Some policymakers, believing that disparities in broadband access across American society could have adverse economic and social consequences on those left behind, assert that the federal government should play a more active role to avoid a "digital divide" in broadband access. With the conclusion of the grant and loan awards established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), there remain two ongoing federal vehicles which direct federal money to fund broadband infrastructure: the broadband and telecommunications programs at the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Universal Service Fund (USF) programs under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although the USF's High Cost Program does not explicitly fund broadband infrastructure, subsidies are used, in many cases, to upgrade existing telephone networks so that they are capable of delivering high-speed services. Additionally, subsidies provided by USF's Schools and Libraries Program and Rural Health Care Program are used for a variety of telecommunications services, including broadband access. Currently the USF is undergoing a major transition to the Connect America Fund, which is targeted to the deployment, adoption, and utilization of both fixed and mobile broadband. To the extent that the 112th Congress may consider various options for further encouraging broadband deployment and adoption, a key issue is how to strike a balance between providing federal assistance for unserved and underserved areas where the private sector may not be providing acceptable levels of broadband service, while at the same time minimizing any deleterious effects that government intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector investment.