The use of e-government services and the Internet: The role of socio-demographic, economic and geographical predictors

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 4-5, 2013, Pages 413-422

  Taipale, Sakari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Adoption; E govemment; Finland; Service; The Internet; Users

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; GOVERNMENT DATA PROCESSING; POPULATION STATISTICS; PUBLIC POLICY;

ADOPTION; E-GOVEMMENT; FINLAND; SERVICE; USERS;

WEB SERVICES;

EID: 84885185345     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2012.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the AC, 52(4), 132-135.
2. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizens trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems, 15, 5-25.
3. Carter, L. (2008). E-government diffusion: A comparison of adoption constructs. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2, 147-161.
4. Chourdie, J., & Dwivedi, Y. (2005). A survey of citizens' awareness and adoption of e-government initiatives, the 'Government Gateway': A United Kingdom perspective. In: Z. Irani, T. Elliman, & O. D. Sarikas (Eds.), Proceedings of the eGovernment Workshop '05 (eGOV05) (pp. 1-13). London: Brunel University.
5. Colesca, S. E., & Dobrica, L. (2008). Adoption and use of e-government services: The case of Romania. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 6(2), 204-217.
6. Colesca, S. E. (2008). Increasing e-trust: A solution to minimize risk in e-government adoption. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 4(1), 31-44.
7. COM (2010). A digital agenda for Europe. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from .
8. Esping-Anderssen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Euro Stat. (2011). Information society statistics. Retrieved September 23, 2011, from .
10. Fortunati, L., & Manganelli, A.-M. (1998). La comunicazione tecnologica: Comportamenti, opinioni ed emozioni degli Europei [Technologhical communication behaviour, opinions and emotions in Europe]. In: L. Fortunati (Ed.), Telecomunicando in Europa (pp. 125-194). Milan:Angeli.
11. Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in the Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1838-1852.
12. Hung, S.-Y., Chang, C.-M., & Yu, T.-J. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 97-122.
13. Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Seoane Perez, F. (2009). U.S. college students' Internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 244-264.
14. Kovacheva, S., Doorne-Huiskes, A., & Anttila, T. (2011). The institutional context of the quality of life. In: M. Bäck-Wiklund, T. van der Lippe, L. den Dulk, & A. Doorne-Huiskes (Eds.), Quality of Life and Work in Europe (pp. 32-54). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
15. LaRose, R., Lin, C., & Eastin, M. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation?. Media Psychology, 5, 225-253.
16. LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Towards a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 358-377.
17. Lenhart, A., & Horrigan, J. B. (2003). Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT & Society, 1(5), 23-39.
18. Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499-523.
19. Mante-Meijer, E., & Klamer, L. (Eds.). (2005). ICT capabilities in action: What people do. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
20. Ministry of Finance. (2010). One-stop public administration services online: Ministry of Finance and State Treasury announce launch of upgraded citizens' portal Suomi.fi. Retrieved September 26, 2011, from .
21. Ministry of Transport and Communications. (2010). Productive and inventive Finland: Digital agenda for 2011-2020. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from .
22. National Audit Office of Finland. (2008). Alueellisten tietoyhteiskuntahankkeiden toteutus [Implementation of Regional Information Society Projects]. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from .
23. Nemes, S., Jonasson, J., Genell, A., & Steineck, G. (2009). Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 56-61.
24. OECD, G. (2010). Finland: Working together to sustain success. Paris: OECD.
25. On the Move: The Role of Cellular Communications in American Life. (2006). Michigan: University of Michigan, Department of Communication Studies. Retrieved August 9, 2011, from .
26. Reddick, C. G. (2004). A two stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 51-64.
27. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizens interaction with e-government: From the streets to server?. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 38-57.
28. Rusten, G., & Skerratt, S. (Eds.). (2008). Information and communication technologies in rural society: Being rural in a digital age. Oxford: Routledge.
29. Sassi, S. (2005). Cultural differentiation or social segregation? Four approaches to the digital divide. New Media & Society, 7, 684-700.
30. Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Furlong, J. (2005). Whose Internet is it anyway? Exploring adults' (non)use of the Internet in everyday life. European Journal of Communication, 20, 5-26.
31. Statistics Finland, J. (2011). Ajankäyttötutkimus 2009 [Time Use Survey 2009]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
32. Strover, S. (2001). Rural Internet connectivity. Telecommunications Policy, 25, 331-347.
33. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
34. Tookey, A., Whalley, J., & Howick, S. (2006). Broadband diffusion in remote and rural Scotland. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 481-495.
35. Turkki, T. (2009). Nykyaikaa etsimässä: Suomen digitaalinen tulevaisuus [In search of modern times: The digital future of Finland]. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from .
36. van Dijk, J., Pieterson, W., van Deuren, A., & Ebbers, W. (2007). Services for citizens: The Dutch usage case. In: M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, & A. Grönlund (Eds.), International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 155-166). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
37. van Dijk, J., Peters, O., & Ebbers, W. (2008). Explaining the acceptance and use of government Internet services: A multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 379-399.
38. Wasserman, I. M., & Richmond-Abbott, M. (2005). Gender and the Internet: Causes of variation in access, level, and scope of use. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 252-270.
39. Weiser, E. B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3, 167-178.
40. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646-665.