DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of the Value of New Generation of Egovernment Services and How Can the Public Sector Become an Agent of Innovation Through ICT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of the Value of New Generation of Egovernment Services and How Can the Public Sector Become an Agent of Innovation Through ICT FR Analysis of the Value of New Generation of eGovernment Services and How Can the Public Sector Become an Agent of Innovation through ICT FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology by: Digital Digital AAgendagenda for for Europe Study on “Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services” Final Report This study was carried out for the European Commission by Galasso Giovanna – Director, PwC Garbasso Giorgio – Senior Associate, PwC Farina Giorgio – Associate, PwC Osimo David – Scientific Director, Open Evidence Mureddu Francesco – Senior Consultant, Open Evidence Kalvet Tarmo – Senior Research Fellow – Institute of Baltic Studies and Senior Research Fellow at Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology Waller Paul – External Expert, Brunel University and Independent Consultant Internal identification Contract number: 30-CE-0702542/00-78 SMART number: 2014/0066 DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 978-92-79-63112-2 doi: 10.2759/343572 © European Union, 2016. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 2 Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 7 Introduction .....................................................................................................14 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................14 Structure of the Tasks and Methodology ...........................................................15 Structure of the Document .............................................................................17 1 Part I: Analysis of the value of OGS ..............................................................18 1.1 Main concepts related to OGS ................................................................18 1.1.1 Review of concepts related to “Traditional Government” ......................... 18 1.1.2 Review of concepts related to “eGovernment” ....................................... 21 1.1.3 Review of Open eGovernment Services ................................................ 22 1.2 Definition and Taxonomy .......................................................................30 1.2.1 Definition of Open eGovernment Services ............................................. 30 1.2.2 Use of the Taxonomy in the Study ....................................................... 40 1.3 Value of OGS .......................................................................................43 1.3.1 Methodology for the Analysis of OGS Value........................................... 43 1.3.2 Analysis of the Value of Selected Cases ................................................ 51 1.3.3 Main findings from the analysis ........................................................... 61 2 Part II: Public Sector as an Agent of Innovation through ICT in OGS context ......63 2.1 Drivers and Barriers for OGS Innovation..................................................63 2.1.1 Drivers, Barriers & Policy Instruments for OGS PSIN: Key Hypothesis ...... 63 2.1.2 Drivers, Barriers & Policy Instruments for OGS PSIN: Empirical Findings .. 72 2.2 Future Scenarios ..................................................................................81 2.2.1 Scenario One: Open Decisions ............................................................ 82 2.2.2 Scenario Two: Collaborative Human Services ........................................ 83 2.2.3 Scenario Three: Federated Administrative Services................................ 84 2.2.4 Scenario Four: The End of Open Government ....................................... 85 2.3 Final Recommendations ........................................................................87 2.3.1 Design openness as a gradual learning process ..................................... 89 2.3.2 Adjust the institutional framework ....................................................... 92 2.3.3 Design clear incentives ...................................................................... 94 2.3.4 Disseminate proactively ..................................................................... 95 2.3.5 Improve the evidence base ................................................................. 97 2.3.6 Overview .......................................................................................... 99 2.4 Concluding remarks: putting the results in perspective ........................... 100 3 Annexes .................................................................................................. 104 3.1 Bibliography Annex ............................................................................. 104 3.2 Case studies Annex ............................................................................ 120 3.3 Excerpt from the Scenario Workshop .................................................... 207 Study on “Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services” Final Report Table of Figures Figure 1 - Overview of the architecture of the work ...............................................16 Figure 2 - Key dimensions of open government ....................................................23 Figure 3 - Typology of public services ..................................................................27 Figure 4 - Innovative methods throughout the policy cycle phases ..........................29 Figure 5 - Conceptual model of the definition of OGS ............................................32 Figure 6 - Procedure for the elaboration of the final version of OGS taxonomy .........33 Figure 7 - Proposed taxonomy ............................................................................34 Figure 8 – Distribution of mapped OGS cases accordingly to governmental sector.....40 Figure 9 - Are you aware of any of the following Open eGovernment Services? ........73 Figure 10 - Would you ever use any of the following Open eGovernment Services? ...73 Figure 11 - Barriers for the adoption of OGS (individuals) ......................................74 Figure 12 - Organisational level barriers for PSIN in the context of OGS ..................75 Figure 13 - Environmental barriers to the OGS implementation in public sector ........77 Figure 14 - Drivers for PSIN in the context of OGS ................................................78 Figure 15 - Future Scenarios ..............................................................................82 Figure 16 - Elaboration of Final Policy Recommendations .......................................87 Figure 17 - Different levels of benefit across time .................................................90 4 Study on “Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services” Final Report List of Acronyms CBA Cost & Benefit Analysis COFOG Classification of the Functions of Government ICT Information Communication Technology NES New eGovernment Services OGS Open eGovernment Services PSI Public Sector Information PSIN Public Sector INnovation R&D Research & Development 5 Study on “Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services” Final Report Abstract The current social, economic and technological developments are leading towards the emergence of a new generation of eGovernment Services, defined within the scope of the study as Open eGovernment Services (OGS). Such OGS are open, collaborative and digital based services characterised by a deliberate, declared and purposeful effort to increase openness and collaboration through technology in order to deliver increased public value. These open, collaborative and co-production features exist in all phases of the design, deployment, implementation and delivery of the service. In this regard the objective of the study was to better understand what OGS are, what is their value for society and how the public sector should innovate to foster their use and maximize their impact on society. To this aim, the study produced the following results: 1) a definition and a taxonomy of OGS; 2) an assessment of the value of OGS, based on a costs-benefits analysis aggregated and extrapolated across European countries, completed with an assessment of the non-monetized benefits; 3) the assessment of how public sector innovation happens and how the implementation of OGS can be accelerated by mean of appropriate policy measures. 6 Study on “Analysis of the value of new generation of eGovernment services” Final Report Executive Summary The new EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government – is guided by the following vision: “By 2020, public administrations and public institutions in the European Union should be open, efficient and inclusive, providing borderless, personalised, user-friendly, end- to-end digital public services to all citizens and businesses in the EU. Innovative approaches are used
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lewisham, Borough of London, United Kingdom
    Resituating the Local in Cohesion and Territorial Development Case Study Report Homelessness Project in Lewisham, Borough of London, United Kingdom Authors: Elizabeth Brooks, Ali Madanipour, Mark Shucksmith Report Information Title: Case Study Report: Homelessness Project in Lewisham, Borough of London, United Kingdom (RELOCAL Deliverable 6.2) Authors: Brooks, E., Madanipour, A. & Schucksmith, M. Version: Final Date of Publication: 29/03/2019 Dissemination level: Public Project Information Project Acronym RELOCAL Project Full title: Resituating the Local in Cohesion and Territorial Development Grant Agreement: 727097 Project Duration: 48 months Project coordinator: UEF Bibliographic Information Brooks E, Madanipour A and Shucksmith M (2019) Homelessness Project in Lewisham, Borough of London, United Kingdom. RELOCAL Case Study N° 32/33. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Information may be quoted provided the source is stated accurately and clearly. Reproduction for own/internal use is permitted. This paper can be downloaded from our website: https://relocal.eu i Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................. iii List of Maps ...................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kattel Et Al
    3rd International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP3) June 28-30, 2017 – Singapore Panel T06P01 Public Sector Innovation: Organizational and Institutional Trends in the Post-New Public Management Era Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation? Author(s) Rainer Kattel, Wolfgang Drechsler, Erkki Karo All Ragnar Nurkse School of innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia; [email protected] Innovation Bureaucracy: Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation? Abstract: Current research on how to organize the roles of government in promoting innovation converges around a rather simplified single-organization explanation: support of innovation requires either (Weberian) elite expert organizations or (Schumpeterian) fluid peripheral organizations. We show that looking at history of innovation bureaucracy, a more complex picture emerges: historically we find a rich organizational variety in how governments have organized different innovation promoting activities. We show that historically this organizational variety is, first, driven by highly diverse public-private relationships; second, the variety is of evolutionary nature; third, the diversity of organizations itself is an important factor in success and failure of innovation policies. Combining analytical lenses created by Weber and management literature on capabilities and ambidexterity, we build analytical framework to understand how organizational variety of innovation bureaucracy evolves
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 18.Qxd
    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 18 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] The Economics of Failed, Failing, and Fragile States: Productive Structure as the Missing Link Erik S. Reinert, The Other Canon Foundation & Tallinn University of Technology, Yves Ekoué Amaïzo, UNIDO, Vienna 1 and Rainer Kattel , Tallinn University of Technology Jnauary 2009 1 Contact authors: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. The research for this paper was partially funded by the Estonian Science Foundation, grant no 6703. 1. Introduction: Lost Theoretical Insights from US Secretary of State George Marshall. More than sixty years ago, on 5 June 1947, US Secretary of State George Marshall gave a speech at Harvard University announcing what was to be called the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was probably the most suc- cessful development plan in human history, re-industrializing and industrial- izing countries from Norway and Sweden in the North to Greece and Turkey in the South-East. At about the same time, a similar process based on the same principles re-industrialized and industrialized East Asia, spreading from Japan in the North-East towards the South-West. In this way a cordon san- itaire of wealthy countries was created around the communist world, stemming the communist tide that was rising at the time of Marshall’s speech. One country to benefit from the Marshall-type ideology was South Korea, a country that in 1950 was poorer (GDP per capita estimated at $ 770) than Somalia (GDP per capita estimated at $ 1057; Maddisson 2003), which today is an example of a failed state (see Figure 1 below).
    [Show full text]
  • NSE KARO.Pdf
    This article was downloaded by: [Professor Judith Clifton] On: 18 June 2015, At: 08:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Economic Policy Reform Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpre20 Economic development and evolving state capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: can “smart specialization” make a difference? Erkki Karoa & Rainer Kattela a Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia Published online: 08 Apr 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Erkki Karo & Rainer Kattel (2015) Economic development and evolving state capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: can “smart specialization” make a difference?, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18:2, 172-187, DOI: 10.1080/17487870.2015.1009068 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2015.1009068 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • The Baltic States and the Crisis of 2008-2011 Rainer Kattel and Ringa
    The Baltic States and the Crisis of 2008-2011 Rainer Kattel and Ringa Raudla1 This essay explores how the Baltic republics responded to the crisis of 2008–2011.We argue that while there are significant differences in how the Baltic economies responded to the crisis, these responses not only remain within the neo-liberal policy paradigm characteristic of the region from the early 1990s, but that the crisis radicalised Baltic economies and particularly their fiscal stance. We show that there are a number of unique features in all three Baltic republics’ political economies that made such a radicalisation possible. However, these unique features make it almost impossible for the Baltic experience to be replicable anywhere else in Europe. 1. Introduction Europe, and the rest of the developed world along with it, seems to be mired in a debate over whether austerity brings growth or not. While there seem to be less and less candidates for actual European cases where fiscal retrenchment resulted in economic recovery and growth, the Baltic states persistently attempt to claim that austerity works. All three countries were painfully hit by the global financial crisis in 2008-2009 and topped the global charts in GDP contraction; all three responded to the crisis by adopting a series of austerity measures. In 2010, the Baltic states started to recover and recorded GDP growth between 5.5% and 7.6% in 2011. In the light of such temporal sequences of events, there has been a temptation in the policy circles both inside the Baltic states but also internationally to draw a causal conclusion and to claim that it was the austerity that led to growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990.Pdf
    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 23 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] Industrial Restructuring and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990 1 Rainer Kattel , Erik S. Reinert and Margit Suurna, Tallinn University of Technology May 2009 1 Corresponding author, email: [email protected]. Research for this study was partially supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (targeted financing grant no SF0140094s08), the Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (I-PUP grant) and the Estonian Science Foundation (grants no 7577, 6703 and 8097). 1. Introduction Until very recently, economic development in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries2 has been seen by most analysts in both academic and pol- icy circles as a largely positive if not a very positive story. For example, at the end of 2005, Business Week ran a cover story titled “Central Europe – Rise of a Powerhouse”. It has become commonplace to argue that the suc- cess of CEE development is mainly due to neoliberal economic policies (lib- eralized markets, balanced public budget, price stability, low tax burden, and strongly market oriented reforms in all socio-economic sectors) pursued by these countries since the early 1990s. In other words, CEE countries have been poster countries for Washington Consensus policies. Indeed, as we show below, during the entire decade of the1990s, industrial restruc- turing and embryonic innovation policies in CEE were largely dominated by Washington Consensus thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Rainz 24.Qxd
    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 24 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] The Copying Paradox: Why Converging Policies but Diverging Capacities for Development in Eastern European Innovation Systems? 1 Erkki Karo and Rainer Kattel August 2009 1 Corresponding author, email: [email protected]. Research for this study was partially supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (targeted financing grant no SF0140094s08), Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (I-PUP grant) and the Estonian Science Foundation (grants no 7577, 6703 and 7441). Abstract This paper analyses the development of Eastern European innovation systems since the 1990s by looking together at the theoretical and empirical accounts of two discourses that have had a siginificant impact on the development of innovation systems: innova- tion policy and public administration and management. We propose a framework for analysing the development of innovation policies distinguishing between two concepts - policy and administrative capacity – that are necessary for innovation policy making and implementation. Using the framework we show how the Eastern European innova- tion systems have, because of past legacies and international policy transfer, developed a highly specific understanding of innovation policy based on the initial impact of the Washington Consensus policies and later the European Union. We argue that because of the interplay between the principles and policy reccomendations of the two interna- tional discourses we can see the emergence of a ‘copying paradox’ in Eastern European innovation systems: that is, despite the perception of policy convergence, we can wit- ness a divergence in the policy from the intended results, and as a result can talk about limited and de-contextualised policy-making capacities.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Divergent Development Trajectories: Schumpeterian Competition, Finance and Financial Governance* Leonardo Burlamaqui** Rainer Kattel***
    Assessing divergent development trajectories: Schumpeterian competition, finance and financial governance* Leonardo Burlamaqui** Rainer Kattel*** Recebido: 29/01/2015 Versão Revisada (entregue): 24/08/2015 Aprovado: 28/08/2015 ABSTRACT The paper offers four propositions for discussion. First, it argues that instead of the often- assumed convergence among nations, history shows us that divergence is a more appropriate way to conceptualize development trajectories; and that this is especially visible in the last century. Secondly, the paper suggests that “convergence” and “catch-up” are, from a Schumpeterian perspective, theoretically inadequate concepts as they frame development narratives similarly to the Rostovian idea of a linear path towards some sort of “development equilibrium”. Thirdly, we outline this schumpeterian framework, centered on the concept of leapfrogging through innovation and finance. The paper concludes by pointing out that macrofinancial coherence and “robust” economic governance (the role of the State playing a key role here) are essential dimensions – although scarcely researched of such alternative framework – for understanding development trajectories. KEYWORDS | Development; Finance; Competition; Leapfrogging; Schumpeter JEL-CODES: O1; O33; O38 * This is a substantial further development of our previous paper, Burlamaqui and Kattel (2014). The authors would like to thank Jan Kregel for comments to an earlier draft of the paper and to the two anonymous reviewers whose sharp questions and suggestions helped us to refine a number of points. The usual disclaimers apply. ** Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] *** Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected] AT Rev. Bras. Inov., Campinas (SP), 15 (1), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Reinert Kattel 14.Qxd
    TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 14 the other canon foundation, Norway Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn CONTACT: Rainer Kattel, [email protected]; Wolfgang Drechsler, [email protected]; Erik S. Reinert, [email protected] European Eastern Enlargement as Europe’s Attempted Economic Suicide?1 2 3 Erik S. Reinert and Rainer Kattel July 2007 1 This article is drawn from our earlier research (Reinert and Kattel 2004; and Reinert 2006). For a full exposition of the history of economic policy, see Reinert 2007. Research for this article has been partially funded by Estonian Science Foundation, Grant No.6703. 2 The Other Canon Foundation (Norway) and Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia). 3 Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia. Corresponding author email: [email protected]. Abstract We argue that the process of European economic integration has made a qualitative shift: from a Listian symmetrical economic integration to an integrative and asymmetrical integration. This shift started in the early 1990s with the integration of the former Soviet economies into the economies of Europe and the world as a whole, reached its climax with the Eastern enlargement of the Union in 2004, and now forms the foun- dation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy. This change is measurably threat- ening European welfare: the economic periphery in the first instance, and potentially the core countries as well. Two parallel processes aggravate this development: the timing of the enlargement at this particular phase of the evolving techno-economic paradigm; and the creation of the European Monetary Union along the so-called Maastricht route towards convergence and fiscal stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Deindustrialisation Reconsidered: Structural Shifts and Sectoral Heterogeneity
    Deindustrialisation reconsidered: Structural shifts and sectoral heterogeneity Fiona Tregenna South African Research Chair in Industrial Development University of Johannesburg Antonio Andreoni Associate Professor of Industrial Economics at University College London Head of Research at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose UCL Institute for Innovation and WORKING PAPER Public Purpose WP 2020—06 About the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose The UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) aims to develop a new framework for creating, nurturing and evaluating public value in order to achieve economic growth that is more innovation-led, inclusive and sustainable. We intend this framework to inform the debate about the direction of economic growth and the use of mission-oriented policies to confront social and technological problems. Our work will feed into innovation and industrial policy, financial reform, institutional change, and sustainable development. A key pillar of IIPP's research is its understanding of markets as outcomes of the interactions between different actors. In this context, public policy should not be seen as simply fixing market failures but also as actively shaping and co-creating markets. Re-focusing and designing public organisations around mission-led, public purpose aims will help tackle the grand challenges facing the 21st century. IIPP is housed in The Bartlett, a leading global Faculty of the Built Environment at University College London (UCL), with its radical thinking about space, design and sustainability. This report can be referenced as follows: Tregenna, F. and Andreoni, A. (2020). Deindustrialisation reconsidered: Structural shifts and sectoral heterogeneity. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2020-06).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Housing in the UK and US: Evolution, Issues and Prospects
    Social Housing in the UK and US: Evolution, Issues and Prospects Michael E. Stone, Ph.D. Atlantic Fellow in Public Policy Visiting Associate, Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London Professor of Community Planning and Public Policy University of Massachusetts Boston October 2003 Support and Disclaimer: This research was made possible through an Atlantic Fellowship in Public Policy, funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and administered by the British Council. Additional support has been provided by the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London; and the John W. McCormack Institute for Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, Goldsmiths College, or the University of Massachusetts Boston. Acknowledgements: Community Activists: Malcolm Cadman, Bill Ellson, Steve Hurren, Jean Kysow, Jessica Leech, Shirley Mucklow, Pete Pope, Jess Steele Housing Professionals: Keith Anderson, John Bader, Alan Bonney, Lorraine Campbell, Simon Cribbens, Emyr Evans, Barbara Gray, Pat Hayes, Andy Kennedy, Colm McCaughley, David Orr, Steve Palmer, Emma Peters, Roland Smithies, Louise Spires, Sarah Thurman Goldsmiths College CUCR Staff: Les Back, Ben Gidley, Paul Halliday, Roger Hewitt, Carole Keegan, Michael Keith, Azra Khan, Marjorie Mayo, Neil Spicer, Chenli Vautier, Bridget Ward © Copyright, 2003, Michael E. Stone. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Borough of Lewisham (Electoral Changes) Order 2020
    Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 59(9) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; draft to lie for forty days pursuant to section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, during which period either House of Parliament may resolve that the Order be not made. DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2020 No. 0000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The London Borough of Lewisham (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 Made - - - - Coming into force in accordance with article 1(2) and (3) Under section 58(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009( a) (“the Act”) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England( b) (“the Commission”) published a report dated June 2020 stating its recommendations for changes to the electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Lewisham. The Commission has decided to give effect to the recommendations. A draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and a period of forty days has expired since the day on which it was laid and neither House has resolved that the instrument be not made. The Commission makes the following Order in exercise of the power conferred by section 59(1) of the Act. Citation and commencement 1. —(1) This Order may be cited as the London Borough of Lewisham (Electoral Changes) Order 2020. (2) This article and article 2 come into force on the day after the day on which this Order is made. (3) Article 3 comes into force— (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to the election of councillors, on the day after the day on which this Order is made; (b) for all other purposes, on the ordinary day of election of councillors in England(c) in 2022.
    [Show full text]