Users’ Acceptance of E-Government: A Study of Indian Central Excise

International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR)

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 1-21

  Sahu, G P ^a   Gupta, M P ^a  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI   (India)

Author keywords

e government; Indian excise; information technology; TAM; technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001602420     PISSN: 15483886     EISSN: 15483894     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jegr.2007070101     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahuja, V. (2000). Building trust in electronic commerce. IT Professional, 2(3), 61–63.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
3. Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management: A primer and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Structural equation modeling: Amos program. In Proceedings of Eighth invitational research seminar on advanced issues in research analysis. Case Western Reserve University.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning organizations in the public sector? A study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance knowledge. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 30–43.
7. Brown, S. A., Massey A. P., Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J.R. (2002). Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(3), 283–295.
8. Caffrey, L. (1998). Information sharing between and within governments: A study group report. London7 Commonwealth Secretariat
9. Chang, I. C., Li, Y. C., Hung, W. F., & Hwang, H. G. (2005). An empirical study on the impact of quality antecedents on tax payers' acceptance of Internet tax-filing systems. Government Information Quarterly, 22(3), 389–410.
10. Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719.
11. Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145–158.
12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–340.
13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, P. R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 892–1003.
14. Duncan, G. T., & Roehrig, S. T. (2003). Mediating the tension between information privacy and information access: The role of digital government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
15. Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45.
16. Fu, J. R., Chao, W. P., & Farn, C. K. (2004). Determinants of taxpayers' adoption of electronic fling methods in Taiwan: An exploratory study. Journal of Government Information, 30(5–6), 658–683.
17. García, J. R. G., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216.
18. Gibson, D., Kleinberg, J. M., & Raghavan, P. (1998). Inferring Web communities from link topology. In Proceedings of ACM Hypertext’ 98(pp. 225–234). Pittsburgh.
19. Gillespie, D. F., & Glisson, C. (1992). Quantitative methods in social work: State of the art. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
20. Gupta, M. P., Kumar, P., & Bhattacharya, J. (2004). Government online: Opportunities and challenges, TMH, New Delhi.
21. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Heeks, R. (2003). Success and failure rates of e-government in developing/transitional countries: Overview. E-government for Development, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, UK.
23. Heintze, T., & Bretschneider, S. (2000). Information technology and restructuring in public organizations: Does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures, communications, and decision-making? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 801–830.
24. Ho, J., & Pardo, T. A. (2004). Toward the success of e-government initiatives: Mapping known success factors to the design of practical tools. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), organized by the College of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
25. Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 325–344.
26. http://exciseandservicetax.nic.in retrieved during December 2005- July 2006.
27. Hung, S. Y., Chang, C. M., & Yu, T. J. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-government services: The case of online tax fling and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97–122.
28. Irvine, C. E. (2000). Security issues for automated information systems. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of p Public information systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
29. Joshi, J. B. D., Ghafor, A., Aref, W. G., & Spafford, E. H. (2002). Security and privacy challenges of a digital government. In W. J. McIver & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government, technology, human factors, and policy Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. LaPorte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the Web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration and Society, 34(4), 411–446.
31. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.
32. Milner, E. M. (2000). Managing information and knowledge in the public sector. New York: Routledge.
33. MIT (Department of Information Technology, Government of India), (2005), http://www.mit.gov. in, accessed during May-June 2005
34. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
35. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users. In K. Kautz & J. Pries-Hege (Eds.), Diffusion and adoption of information technology (pp. 132–146). London: Chapman and Hall.
36. NASSCOM (2005). Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http://www.nasscom.org
37. Newell, S. J., Goldsmith, R. E., & Banzhaf, E. J. (1998). The effect of misleading environmental claims on consumer perceptions of advertisements. Journal of Marketing: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 48–60.
38. Ratnasingham, P. (1998). The importance of trust in electronic commerce. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 8(4), 313–321.
39. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifcations and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.
40. Suh, B., & Han, I. (2003). The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 135–161.
41. Tahinakis, P., Mylonakis, J., & Protogeros, N. (2006). The contribution of e-government to the modernisation of the Hellenic taxation system. Electronic Government, an International Journal (EG), 3(2), 139–157.
42. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
43. Thompson, C. S. (2002). Enlisting on-line residents: Expanding the boundaries of e-government in a Japanese rural township. Government Information Quarterly, 19(2), 173–188.
44. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
45. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
46. Venkatesh, V, & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Science, 27(3), 451–481.
47. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unifed view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
48. Wang, Y. S. (2003). The adoption of electronic tax filing systems: An empirical study. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 333–352.