We present an empirically tested conceptual model based on exit–voice theory to study the influence of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government on citizen trust in government. We conceptualize and address the key factors affecting the influence of transformation of government on citizen trust, including government performance and transparency. Based on 313 survey responses from citizens in Bahrain, the top-ranked country in information and communications technology adoption in the Gulf Cooperation Council region, we test government performance and transparency as mediators between transformation of government and citizen trust. The resulting preliminary insights on the measurement and manifestation of citizen trust in the context of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government have multiple policy implications and extend our understanding of how information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government can improve the government–citizen relationship and digital services adoption.
Points for practitioners
To fundamentally change the core functions of government, information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government must move beyond the simple digitization and web enabling of processes. Information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government has the potential to address declining citizen trust in government by improving transparency and performance. The success of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government in Bahrain is attributable to its small size and demographic composition, the relative maturity of digital government initiatives, and the complete commitment of the government to information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government.
AlrashediRPersaudAKindraG (2015)
Drivers of eparticipation: Case of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Business Inquiry: Research, Education & Application14(1): 1–22.
2.
Al-SobhiFWeerakkodyVMustafaK (2010)
An exploratory study on the role of intermediaries in delivering public services in Madinah City: Case of Saudi Arabia.Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy4(1): 14–36.
3.
AlzahraniLAl-KaraghouliWWeerakkodyV (2017)
Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework.International Business Review26(1): 164–175.
4.
Anthopoulos L, Reddick CG, Giannakidou I and Mavridis N. (2016)
Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the healthcare.gov website.Government Information Quarterly33(1): 161–173.
BannisterFConnollyR (2011)
Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research.Government Information Quarterly28(2): 137–147.
7.
BarnesCGillD (2000) Declining government performance? Why citizens don’t trust government. Working Paper No. 9, State Services Commission, New Zealand, February.
8.
BeanC (2015)
Changing citizen confidence: Orientations towards political and social institutions in Australia, 1983–2010.The Open Political Science Journal8: 1–9.
9.
BélangerFCarterL (2008)
Trust and risk in e-government adoption.The Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(2): 165–176.
10.
BhattacherjeeA (2012) Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.
Charleston:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
11.
BlunchNJ (2012) Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS.
Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publishing.
12.
ByrneBM (2016) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd edn).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
13.
ChenKCWWeiKCJChenZ (2003) Disclosure, corporate governance and the cost of equity capital: Evidence from Asia’s emerging markets. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.422000
14.
Choi H, Park MJ, Rho JJ and Zo H. (2016)
Rethinking the assessment of e-government implementation in developing countries from the perspective of the design–reality gap: Applications in the Indonesian e-procurement system.Telecommunications Policy40(7): 644–660.
15.
Das AundheMNarasimhanR (2016)
Public private partnership (PPP) outcomes in e-government – A social capital explanation.International Journal of Public Sector Management29(7): 638–658.
16.
Donnelly M, Wisniewski M, Dalrymple JF and Curry AC. (1995)
Measuring service quality in local government: The SERVQUAL approach.International Journal of Public Sector Management8: 15–20.
17.
EdwardsM (2015) The trust deficit – concepts and causes of low public trust in governments. Fourteenth Session of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, New York, NY, 8 April. Available at: http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN94464.pdf
18.
Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J and Wang H (2010) Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications.
Heidelberg:
Springer.
19.
FieldA (2013) Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th edn).
Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publications.
20.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981)
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
21.
FornellC, et al. (1996)
The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose and findings.Journal of Marketing60(4): 7–18.
22.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society.
Cambridge:
Polity Press.
23.
GreenSBSalkindNJ (2010) Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (6th edn).
Hoboken:
Pearson.
24.
GrimmelikhuijsenS (2009)
Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?Information Polity14(3): 173–186.
25.
GrimmelikhuijsenSG (2012)
A good man but a bad wizard: About the limits and future of transparency of democratic governments.Information Polity17(3/4): 293–302.
26.
GrimmelikhuijsenS, et al. (2013)
The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross‐national comparative experiment.Public Administration Review73(4): 575–586.
27.
GunawongPGaoP (2017)
Understanding e-government failure in the developing country context: A process-oriented study.Information Technology for Development23(1): 153–178.
28.
HairJF, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis (7th edn).
Upper Saddle River:
Pearson.
29.
HameedSAl-ShawabkahA (2013)
Role of e-government in improving organizational performance in the civil status and passports department of Jordan. Developing Country Studies3(5): 50–64.
30.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
HuseM (2005)
Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance.British Journal of Management16(s1): S65–S79.
JamesO (2009)
Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(1): 107–123.
KampenJKMaddensBVermuntJK (2003) Trust and satisfaction: A case study of the micro-performance theory. In: SaleminA (ed.) Governing Networks: EGPA Yearbook.
Amsterdam:
IOS Press, pp. 319–326.
39.
KampenJKVan De WalleSBouckaertG (2006)
Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review29(4): 387–404.
40.
KayamOHirschT (2012)
Using social media networks to conduct questionnaire based research in social studies case study: Family language policy. Journal of Sociological Research3(2): 57–67.
41.
KimSKimHJLeeH (2009)
An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN.Government Information Quarterly26(1): 42–50.
42.
LayneKLeeJ (2001)
Developing fully functional e-government.Government Information Quarterly18(2): 122–136.
43.
Luna-ReyesLFGil-GarcíaJR (2011)
Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena.Government Information Quarterly28(3): 329–345.
44.
MahmoodMWeerakkodyVChenW (2018)
The influence of transformed government on citizen trust: Insights from Bahrain.Information Technology for Development, Epub ahead of print, 27 Mar, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2018.1451980.
45.
MiyataM (2011)
Measuring impacts of e-government support in least developed countries: A case study of the vehicle registration service in Bhutan.Information Technology for Development17(2): 133–152.
46.
MorgesonFVPetrescuC (2011)
Do they all perform alike? An examination of perceived performance, citizen satisfaction and trust with US federal agencies.International Review of Administrative Sciences77(3): 451–479.
47.
MorgesonFV IIIVanAmburgDMithasS (2011)
Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government–citizen trust relationship.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(2): 257–283.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH (1994) Psychometric Theory (3rd edn).
New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
51.
OmarAWeerakkodyVSivarajahU (2017)
Digitally enabled service transformation in UK public sector: A case analysis of Universal Credit.International Journal of Information Management37(4): 350–356.
52.
O’NeillO (2002) A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
53.
O’NeillR (2009)
The transformative impact of e-government on public governance in New Zealand.Public Management Review11(6): 751–770.
PinaVTorresLRoyoS (2009)
E-government evolution in EU local governments: A comparative perspective.Online Information Review33(6): 1137–1168.
56.
RodriguesGSarabdeenJBalasubramanianS (2016)
Factors that influence consumer adoption of e-government services in the UAE: A UTAUT model perspective.Journal of Internet Commerce15(1): 18–39.
57.
Rodríguez BolívarMPAlcaide MuñozLLópez HernándezAM (2016)
Scientometric study of the progress and development of e-government research during the period 2000–2012.Information Technology for Development22(1): 36–74.
58.
SaidJJaafarNHAtanR (2015)
Assessing accountability in government linked companies: An empirical evidence. International Business Management9(4): 460–469.
59.
SauermannHRoachM (2013)
Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features.Research Policy42(1): 273–286.
60.
SaxenaS (2017)
Significance of open government data in the GCC countries.Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance19(3): 251–263.
61.
SrivastavaSCTeoTS (2009)
Citizen trust development for e-government adoption and usage: Insights from young adults in Singapore. Communications of the Association for Information Systems25(1): 31.
62.
SwiftT (2001)
Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders.Business Ethics: A European Review10(1): 16–26.
Van de WalleSBouckaertG (2003)
Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality.International Journal of Public Administration26(8/9): 891–913.
71.
Van de WalleSVan RoosbroekSBouckaertG (2008)
Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline?International Review of Administrative Sciences74(1): 47–64.
72.
WallerPWeerakkodyV (2016) Digital Government: Overcoming the Systemic Failure of Transformation. Working Paper 2, June.
London:
Brunei University Press. Available at: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/12732
73.
WeerakkodyVJanssenMDwivediYK (2009) Handbook of Research on ICT Enabled Transformational Government: A Global Perspective.
Hershey:
Information Science Reference.
74.
WeerakkodyV, et al. (2013)
Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: An empirical investigation.International Journal of Information Management33(5): 716–725.
75.
WeerakkodyVOmarAEl-HaddadehR, et al. (2016)
Digitally-enabled service transformation in the public sector: The lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change.Government Information Quarterly33(4): 658–668.
76.
WelchEWHinnantCCMoonMJ (2005)
Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3): 371–391.
77.
WestDM (2004)
E‐government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes.Public Administration Review64(1): 15–27.
