Search results

E‐Government programs often address problems such as institutional ineffectiveness, lack of transparency, or social exclusion. Financial exclusion and people's reliance on ineffective payment methods appear to be a well‐known problem world‐wide. Yet, despite the large number of related case studies and academic reports on the topic, little is understood about the impact governmental payment practices have on the financial behaviour of citizens. Few investigations address how governmental use of payment methods and related policies may impact citizen/consumer behaviour. Through investigating the move to E‐Payment based methods to replace the dominant use of cash and cheques in social welfare in Ireland, the purpose of this paper is to explore the recipient's view of this government project.

The research is organized as an intrinsic case study where the unit of analysis is one large project. It aims at a rich description of one particular case by analysing data collected from two main sources of evidence: preliminary investigation is done by reviewing relevant documents, while primary data collection involved face‐to‐face surveys of social welfare recipients (using a short, structured questionnaire augmented with a few open‐ended questions).

The planning and execution of E‐Government programs often face barriers of mostly social and historical nature. As the results of this research indicate, these barriers might be hard to overcome as they are the result of certain behaviours and attitudes rooted in people's daily experience, such as their daily financial reality. Results also imply that the choice of an adequate E‐Payment method and migration scenario by governmental agencies will be crucial to the outcome. Implementation and education will also be critical.

This study reports on the influence governmental decisions related to social welfare payment methods may have on recipients' financial habits regarding the choice of payment options. It also shows how recipients' everyday experience and financial reality determine the way they relate to payment options.

This paper aims to consider the case study of Ireland with regards to the implementation of a formal parliamentary technology assessment (PTA) capability. With emphasis on innovation and knowledge-based economies, society faces a proliferation of technological challenges with far-reaching unpredictable impacts. Elected representatives need unbiased scientific knowledge to underpin evidence-based policy-oriented decision-making. PTA is directed at policy-oriented decision-making processes within the parliament. It identifies the role played by existing agencies and the gaps that remain to be filled in the current landscape. It explores the feasibility of potential future institutional arrangements in a country without a recognised formal PTA agency.

An embedded case study approach was utilised based on three main sources of evidence: relevant published documents pertaining to science and technology governance; interviews with key decision-makers; and illustrative case of “hydraulic fracturing” demonstrating key issues stemming from the lack of a formal PTA structure.

The case revealed the interplay between key actors in the area of science, technology and innovation in Ireland. It demonstrated the need for improved citizen engagement. The analysis revealed that formal technology assessment channels should be established to provide a voice for civil society to engage in policy-making. Given the requirements and constraints, a feasible way to implement PTA seems to be the “parliamentary office” model which would seem to be a good fit in the context of Ireland’s current situation.

The paper presents how PTA may be realised in a country without a formal PTA agency using a parliamentary office model to provide a channel for citizen engagement in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy-making.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that free market capitalism is neither efficient nor just. This is in spite of the claims made by its proponents who, utilizing Adam Smith's doctrine of invisible hand or the fundamental theorem of welfare economics, assume that it is efficient, just, smooth functioning, and self‐regulating.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical research and arguments that have emerged in the literatures of public economics and welfare economics.

In addition to proving the above, the paper also finds that Adam Smith is actually a moral egalitarian, thus he could not have agreed with Nozick and Friedman regarding the nature of capitalism. To the extent that Smith supported free market capitalism, it was because he thought, in contrast to mercantilist policies, that free markets would lead to equity and justice.

The paper is an original/valuable contribution since it rescues Adam Smith from the extreme proponents of laissez‐faire capitalism who claim him.