Virtual Agency

A virtual agency is called as such because it has no physical or simple jurisdictional existence. It is essentially a Web portal that integrates a thematically organized range of information and online public services drawn from various “real” departments and agencies. It presents these to citizens in an easily navigable format. Virtual agencies are a key component of most e-government programs. Some analyses suggest that they can go beyond their virtual status and spur lasting organizational change.

Beyond the simple presentation of information on the Web by a single agency, virtual agencies are characterized by the sharing of information held in databases and work patterns based on networks of problem-solving “teams,” often involving public- and private-sector actors. The implementation of such projects across government, especially in the United States, expanded under the George W. Bush administrations of the 2000s, with the creation of http://www.grants.gov, http://www.kids.gov, http://www.students.gov, and http://www.export.gov, to name a few.

Virtual agencies mark a significant departure from previous approaches to service delivery. They promise greater coordination across government. They also signal recognition that the identities of users of public services are rarely monolithic and that a detailed knowledge of the structures of public bureaucracies should not be a prerequisite for access to services. By conceiving of the user base as highly segmented, in much the same way as private-sector firms, proponents argue that improved customer service can be delivered to those who are perceived to be most in need. In time, so the argument runs, decisive organizational change will occur, as the virtual agency cannibalizes the “real” agencies from which it first grew.

Yet despite the promise of increased coordination, some scholars have argued that virtual agencies have sometimes proved difficult to implement, not least because they may involve job losses, or, for those who are fortunate enough to retain their job, because a new agency might take the power of decision away from previously important managers. There are also longstanding problems with counteracting the “silo” culture of departmentalism in government. As a result of the new public management, public bureaucracies in many countries are not the relatively monolithic entities that they were twenty years ago. The situation is compounded by the differing technological demands of individual departments and agencies, as well as the fact that some, in effect, “go it alone” with their own technologically inspired projects. The latter has largely been the case with the implementation of e-government in British local government—developments led by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than the body responsible for the rest of the program, the Cabinet Office E-Government Unit. E-government may thus increase competition within and between organizations, increasing fragmentation rather than reducing it. Thus, there are significant obstacles to the vision of increasing coordination through virtual agencies.