Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 31, Issue SUPPL.1, 2014, Pages

  Savoldelli, Alberto ^a   Codagnone, Cristiano ^b   Misuraca, Gianluca ^c  

^a Università degli studi di Milano ^*  (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Adoption; Barriers; E Government; ICT; Policy making; Public value; Smart government

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905082386     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Andersen K.V., Henrisken H.Z. e-Government maturity model: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly 2006, 23(2):236-238.
2. Anttiroiko A.-V. Local e-government for development: Preliminary remarks 2008.
3. Bauby P., Similie M. Public services in the European Union and in the 27 Member States: Statistics, organisations and regulations Brussels: European Commission 2010.
4. Belanger F., Carter L. Trust and risk in e-government adoption. Strategic Information Systems 2008, 17(7):165-176.
5. Bertot J.C., Jaeger P.T. The e-government paradox: Better customer service doesn't necessarily cost less. Government Information Quarterly 2008, 25(2):149-154.
6. Besharov D.J., Barabashev A., Boehler K., Klerman J.A. Note of Appam-Moscow Conference on "Improving the quality of public services: a multinational conference on public management". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2013, 32(1):204-210.
7. Blanake J., Lopez-Claros A. The Lisbon Review 2004: An assessment of policies and reforms in Europe 2004, World Economic Forum.
8. Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review 2007, 5:846-860.
9. Capgemini Digitizing public service in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th benchmark measurement 2010, Delivered for the European Commission, DG Information Society, Brussels.
10. Capgemini Public services online 'digital by default or by detour?' Assessing user centric Egovernment performance in Europe - eGovernment benchmark 2012. Final Background Report 2012, Delivered for the European Commission, DG Connect, Brussels.
11. Capgemini Public services online 'digital by default or by detour?' Assessing user centric egovernment performance in Europe - eGovernment benchmark 2012. Final insight report 2012, Delivered for the European Commission, DG Connect, Brussels.
12. Castelnovo W. Is there an e-government paradox?. 10th European e-government conference on e-government 2010, 90-98. Academic Publishing, Limerick, Ireland. D. O'Donnel (Ed.).
13. Paving the way for future research in ICT for governance and policy modelling 2012, Bookstars Publishing. Y. Charalabidis, F. Lampathaki, D. Askounis (Eds.).
14. Codagnone C. eGEP 2.0 2008, Delivered for the European Commission, DG Information Society, Brussels.
15. Cursey D., Norris D.F. Models of egovernment: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review 2008, (3):523-536.
16. Dawes S.S. An exploratory framework for future e-government research investments. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science 2008.
17. Dunleavy P., Hood C. From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management 1994, 3(14):9-17.
18. Dwivedi Y.K. An analysis of e-government research. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 2009, 3(1):7-15.
19. Ebrahim Z., Irani Z. eGovernmnet adoption: Architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal 2005, 11(5):589-611.
20. Esteves J., Rhoda C.J. A comprehensive framework for the assessment of egovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly 2008, 25:118-132.
21. European Commission Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok 2004, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
22. European Commission i2010 - A European information society for growth and employment. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2005.
23. European Commission Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A digital agenda for Europe 2010, COM (2010) 245. Brussels 19.05.2010.
24. European Commission The European egovernment action plan 2011-2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative government. COM (2010) 743 final 2010, European Commission, Brussels.
25. Feeney M.K., Welch E.W. Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review 2012, 14(6):815-833.
26. Fernández-i-Marín X. The impact of e-government promotion in Europe: Internet dependence and critical mass. Policy & Internet 2011, 3(4).
27. Frandsen T.F., Nicolaisen J. Intradisciplinary differences in database coverage and the consequences for bibliometric research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(10):1570-1581.
28. Fugini M., Maggiolini P., Krysnaia N., Boselli R., Cesarini M., Mezzamanica M. Why is true e-government still difficult to be achieved?. IFIP - International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 280: e-Government; ICT Professionalism and Competence; Service Science 2008, 11-20. Springer, Boston. A. Mazzeo, R. Bellini, G. Motta (Eds.).
29. Gilbert D., Balestrini P., Littleboy D. Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. Governmnet Information Quarterly 2004, 20:365-387.
30. Gil-Garcia J.R., Pardo T.A. e-Government success factors: Mapping practical tool to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly 2005, 22(2):187-216.
31. Gil-Garcia J.R., Pardo T.A. Multi-method approaches to digital government research: Value lessons and implementation challenges. Paper presented at the "Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences", Hawaii 2006.
32. Gupta M.P., Jana D. e-Government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly 2003, 20:365-387.
33. Hassan H.S., Shehab E., Peppard J. Recent advances in e-services in the public sector: State of the art and future trend. Business Process Management Journal 2011, 17(3):526-545.
34. Heeks R. Understanding and measuring e-government: International benchmarking studies. Paper prepared for UNDESA workshop on "eParticipation and e-government: Understanding the present and creating the future". 27-28 July, Budapest, Hungary 2006.
35. Heeks R., Molla A. Impact assessment of ICT development projects: A compendium of approaches 2009, Manchester University Institute for Development Policy and Management, ed. Development Informatics Group.
36. Henningsson S., Van Veenstra A.F. Barriers to IT driven governmental transformation. Paper presented at the 18th European Conference on Information Systems. ECIS 2010 2010.
37. Horst M., Kuttschreuter M., Gutteling M.J. Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behaviour 2007, 23(2):1838-1852.
38. Holzer M., Kloby K. Sustaining citizen-driven performances improvemnet: models for adaptation and issues of sustainability. The Public Sector Innovation Journal 2005, Vol. 10. No, 1 The innovation journal.
39. Jain V., Kesar S. E-government implementation challenges at local level: A comparative study of government and citizens perspectives. Electronic Government, an International Journal 2011, 8(2-3):208-225.
40. Kelly G., Mulgan G., Muers S. Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform 2002, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, London.
41. Kolsker A., Lee-Kelley L. Citizens' attitudes towards e-government and egovernance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2008, 21(7):723-738.
42. Kramer K.L., King L. Information technology and administrative reform: Will the time after e-government be different?. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 2006, 2(1):1-20.
43. Kunstelj M., Vintar M. Evaluating the progress of egovernmnet development: A critical analysis. Information Polity 2004, 9(3-4):131-148.
44. Kunstelj M., Vintar M. Evaluating one-stop government: Critical analysis of the concept and its implementation in the selected countries. NISPAcee Annual Conference, Budva, Montenegro 2009.
45. Lampathaki F., Koussouris S., Charalabidis Y., Askounis D., Mouzakitis S., Passas S., et al. CROSSROAD white paper on state of the art in ICT for governance and policy modelling 2010.
46. Layne K., Lee J.W. Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 2001, 9(2):122-136.
47. Lofstedt U. e-Government: Assessment of current research an some proposal for future directions. International Journal of Public Information, System 2005, 1:39-52.
48. Luna-Reyes L.F., Gil-Garcia J.R., Romero G. Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Government Information Quarterly 2012, 29(3):324-334.
49. McDermott P. Building open government. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27:401-413.
50. Misuraca G. e-Governance in Africa, from Theory to Action: A handbook on ICTs for local governance. IDRC/Africa World Press 2007, http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/ Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=101 and http://www.africaworldpressbooks.com/servlet/Detail?no=157.
51. Misuraca G. e-Governance: Past, present and future: A theoretical framework for prospective policy analysis. eGovernance, A global journey 09/2012, Vol. 4. IOS Press, BV, Amsterdam. M. Finger, F. Sultana (Eds.).
52. Misuraca G., Codagnone C., Rossel P. From practice to theory and back to practice: Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society. Government Information Quarterly 2013, January, (Supplement 1):S68-S82. 10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.011.
53. Misuraca G., Rossel P. Reflexivity, modelling and weak signals of transformational tracks to support both micro- and macro-measuring of information society services. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2011), Tallinn, Estonia, 26-28 September 2011 - ACM International Conference Proceedings Series 2011, ACM Press.
54. Misuraca G., Savoldelli A., Codagnone C. Evaluating e-government: A comprehensive methodological framework to assess policy impacts. Public administration and information technology 2014, 3. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, USA. 10.1007/978-1-4614-8462-2_2. L.G. Anthopoulos, C.G. Reddick (Eds.).
55. Modinis Study Breaking barriers to e-government: Overcoming obstacles to improving European public services. Report prepared for EC DF Information Society and Media 2006.
56. Moon M.J. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review 2002, 62(4):424-433.
57. Mousa R. E-government challenges at the UK's customs and tax department. Electronic Government, an International Journal 2013, 10(1):86-103.
58. Muccio S., Mauri A. The public management reform: From theory to practice. The role of cultural factors. International Journal of Advances in Management Science 2012, 1(3):47-56.
59. Mureddu F., Osimo D., Misuraca G., Armenia S. A new roadmap for next-generation policy-making. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2012), Albany, NY, USA, 22-25 October 2012 2012, ACM Press.
60. Mwangakala H., Mvungi N.H. Towards e-government: Factors affecting utilization of government websites. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. ICCSIT '2011 2011.
61. Nelson K.L., Syara J.H. From government still matters: Fostering innovation in U.S. municipal governments. The American Review of Public Administration 2012, 42(3):257-281.
62. Norris D.F. Electronic government at the grassroots: The state of the practice. Encyclopedia of digital government 2006, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA. A.V. Anttiroiko, M. Malkis (Eds.).
63. Norris D.F., Moon M.J. Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare. Public Administration Review 2005, 65(1):64-75.
64. OECD e-Government studies. The e-government imperative 2003, (www.oecd.org.).
65. OECD e-Government for better government. OECD e-government studies 2007.
66. OECD Implementation guidelines on evaluation and capacity building for local and micro regional level - "The Hungary case" 2009, OECD publication.
67. O'Flynn J. From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2007, 66(3):353-366.
68. Osborne D. Reinventing government. Public Productivity & Management Review 1993, 16(4):349-356.
69. Osborne S. The new public governance?. Public Management Review 2006, 8(3):377-387.
70. Osborne D., Gaebler T. Reinventing government. How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector 1993, Penguin Books, New York.
71. Pavlou P.A., Chai L. What drives electronic commerce across cultures? A cross-cultural empirical investigation of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 2002, 3(4):240-253.
72. Pekka K. Co-production: A new concept in evaluation. Paper presented at the 9th European Evaluation Society International Conference. October 6-8. Prague, Czech Republic 2010.
73. Perrin B. Moving from outputs to outcomes: Practical advice from governments around the world. Managing for performances and results series. Report sponsored by World Bank and the IBM Center for the Business of Government 2006.
74. Pratchett L., Durose C., Lowndes V., Smith G., Stoker G., Wales C. Empowering communities to influence local decision making: A systematic review of the evidence 2009, Department for Communities and Local Government, London.
75. Rana N.P., Dwiyedi Y.K., Williams M.D. Analysing challenges, barriers and CSF of egov adoption. Emerald's transforming government: Process, people and policy 2013, 7(2):177-198.
76. Reddick C.G. A two stage model of e-government: Theories and empirical evidences for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly 2004, 21(1):51-64.
77. Rhoda C.J. A structured analysis of e-government studies: Trends and opportunities. Government Information Quarterly 2013, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.006.
78. Rhodes R. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies 1996, 44(4):652-667.
79. Rose W.R., Grant G.G. Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 2010, 27:26-33.
80. Sanger M.B. Does measuring performance lead to better performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2013, 32:192-209.
81. Sarantis D., Charabilidis Y., Askounis D. A goal-driven management framework for electronic government transformation project implementation. Government Information Quarterly 2011, 28:117-128.
82. Shin E.J. Attitudinal determinants of e-government technology use among U.S. local public managers. Paper presented at TEH 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2012.
83. Titah R., Barki H. eGovernment adoption and acceptance: A literature review. Chaire de la Chaire du Canada en implementation et gestion des technologies des information 2005, HEC Montreal.
84. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective: Assessing the progress of the UN member states 2003.
85. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) eGovernment survey 2010: Leveraging egovernment at a time of financial and economic crisis 2010.
86. Van Ryzin G. Piece of a puzzle: Linking government performances, citizens satisfaction and trust. A performing public sector: The second transatlantic dialogue 2006, June, Leuven, Belgium.
87. Van Ryzin G. Outcome, process and citizens' trust of the civil services. Paper prepared for the 10th National Management Research Conference, October 1-4. Ohio State University, John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Columbus, USA 2009.
88. Wang X., Wan Wart M. When public participation in administration lead to trust: An empirical assessment of managers' perceptions: Essays on citizens participation and governance. Public Administration Review 2007, (2):265-278.
89. Welch E.W. The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2012, 78(1):93-115.
90. Windrum P. Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. Innovation in public sector services 2008, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. P. Windrum, P. Koch (Eds.).
91. Yang K., Holzer M. The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review 2006, 66(1):114-126.
92. Yildiz M. eGovernment research. Reviewing the literature, limitation and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly 2007, 24:646-665.