Gov 2.0, Mobility and Inclusion: A Critical Examination of Social Assistance Reform in Ontario, Canada - Information and Communication Technologies in Public Administration - page 236

within Ontario's evolving parameters of mobility, electronic service delivery, and
wider public sector reforms centers on human and developmental assistance.
After this introduction, the chapter proceeds as follows. Section 11.2 provides a
further conceptualization of Gov 2.0 and mobility, and Section 11.3 examines some
explicit strategies for digital inclusion undertaken elsewhere, notably in Great Britain
and Denmark. Building on these conceptual and empirical reviews, Sections 11.4
and 11.5 present a critical case study—the Province of Ontario, Canada; Section 11.4
examines three recent initiatives with ramifications for digital inclusion, and Section
11.5 seeks to apply a specific Gov 2.0 template (drawn from the Australian State of
Victoria) as a basis for critiquing Ontario's recent social assistance review exercise.
Section 11.6 concludes this chapter with a summary of key lessons learned.
11.2 Gov 2.0 and Mobility
There is a growing imperative for governments at all levels to strategically and pro-
actively address the advent of mobility. Although the most tangible signs of the mobile
era are the explosion of smart devices and user-devised apps, as the above OECD
passage implies, there are much larger consequences and ramifications for the public
sector as new patterns of information exchange and communications take hold, new
expectations arise, and new governance models are formed. Although smart devices
and apps are undoubtedly the most tangible and recognizable symbols of mobility,
this movement arguably encompasses four interrelated dimensions that reflect impor-
tant shifts in technology, demography, and governance: (a) the explosive growth of
broadband capacity; (b) the proliferation of personal, handheld devices of all kinds
(by 2015, there is estimated to be nearly as many mobile smart devices as living
people on Earth); (c) the rapid expansion of both front and back end virtualization
(most notably social media and cloud computing respectively); and (d) the emergence
of a more digitally ubiquitous society and workplace where traditional boundaries
between personal and professional spaces are increasingly blurred (Roy, 2013, 2014a).
New participatory mechanisms, systemic openness, and virtualization are
underpinning an emerging governance ethos that, for the public sector, is often
termed as the emergence of Gov 2.0. At the heart of Gov 2.0 are drivers of collec-
tive intelligence and more collaborative forms of governance that are typically asso-
ciated with a widening online universe and less hierarchical and control-minded
forms of governance (Maier-Rabler & Huber, 2011; Shirky, 2008; Wyld, 2010).
From both external vantage points on new societal formations (such as Wikipedia
and a myriad of social media-driven movements) as well as internal to the public
sector (what Lips characterizes as “public administration 2.0”), governments are
increasingly challenged to move beyond a typology of hierarchies and markets and
embrace usage of networks typically more open and collaborative in formation
and execution (Kostakis, 2011; Lips, 2012; Roy, 2013, 2014a; Stoker, 2005; World
Economic Forum, 2011).