Andrea DiMaio explores the definition of Government 2.0, and questions the use of common terms as means or ends. “Being open or transparent or collaborative is not necessarily an end, but a means to an end.”

What is the end then? Well, I guess it is to have a government that fulfils its mission more effectively and efficiently, providing value to its constituents and making the best possible use of available resources. The end is to be better, not necessarily to be different (although very often this will be the case).

If we start looking at government 2.0 as a toolkit that can help government become better, and possibly much better at doing what it is supposed to do, I would argue that we can would all the current and future efforts tagged as “open government” and “government 2.0” under a better light.

Clearly, as government 2.0 does enhance collaboration, participation, engagement, also the finality of government action will evolve. What government will be supposed to do in 10 or 20 years time may be quite different from what it is supposed to do today, and government 2.0 will play an important role in reshaping this.