3.8 Article

Citizen interaction and e-government Evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models

Journal

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/17506161111131195

Keywords

Citizens; Government; Communication technologies; Open systems; Surveys; Internet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - This paper aims to examine citizen interaction with e-government using three e-participation models. The two major research questions of this paper are: what is the current level of e-participation in the USA?; and what factors explain why citizens participate in online government? Design/methodology/approach - Survey evidence of citizens in the USA and their use of e-participation is examined using quantitative methods. Findings - Citizens were most likely to use e-participation for management activities. Citizens were much less likely to use the internet for more advanced consultative and participatory activities. Using regression analysis, factors such as demand by citizens for e-government, the digital divide, and political factors influenced the level of e-participation. Research limitations/implications - The results of this study imply that governments should do more to stimulate demand for e-government, address issues of the digital divide, and provide for more open and transparent government. A limitation of this study is its focus on e-participation through a survey instrument, which does not consider all possible forms of e-participation. Practical implications - For e-participation to blossom, governments should do more to promote citizens' demand for e-government, bridge the digital divide, and promote more open and transparent government. Originality/value - Existing research on e-participation has focused on theory building and case studies; this paper provides empirical evidence, through a survey, of the level of e-participation and factors that promote e-participation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available