Over the past two decades, many governments around the world have adopted e-government as an anti-corruption tool. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the impacts of e-government on corruption. Thus, this article aims to empirically examine whether e-government reduces corruption across countries. For this purpose, longitudinal data from 2003 to 2016 were collected from 214 countries and then panel data analysis based on a fixed-effect model was conducted. Analysis results reveal that e-government as a whole significantly reduces corruption, while the effects of open government as one type of e-government are unclear. However, the rule of law moderates the relationship between open government and corruption. That is, in countries with more effective legal systems, open government is more likely to reduce corruption than in countries with less effective legal systems.
Points for practitioners
E-government as a whole can effectively reduce corruption.
Open government, such as open data portals and online discussion forums, does not have a direct impact on the reduction of corruption.
Open government can have a conditional impact on corruption, relying on the effectiveness of legal systems.
Abu-ShanabEA (2015)
Reengineering the open government concept: An empirical support for a proposed model.Government Information Quarterly32(4): 453–463.
2.
AidtTDuttaJ, andSenaV (2008)
Governance regimes, corruption and growth: Theory and evidence.Journal of Comparative Economics36(2): 195–220.
3.
AndersenTB (2009)
E-government as an anti-corruption strategy.Information Economics and Policy21(3): 201–210.
4.
BertotJCJaegerPT, andGrimesJM (2010)
Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies.Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271.
5.
BhatnagarS (2003) E-government and access to information. In: The Global Corruption Report 2003.
Berlin:
Transparency International Press Department, pp. 24–32.
6.
BhattacharyyaSHodlerR (2010)
Natural resources, democracy and corruption.European Economic Review54(4): 608–621.
7.
BrunettiAWederB (2003)
A free press is bad news for corruption.Journal of Public Economics87(7/8): 1801–1824.
8.
ChadwickA (2003)
Bringing e-democracy back in: Why it matters for future research on e-governance.Social Science Computer Review21(4): 443–455.
9.
ChoYHChoiB-D (2004)
E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul Metropolitan Government.International Journal of Public Administration27(10): 719–735.
10.
ChowdhurySK (2004)
The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: An empirical test.Economics Letters85(1): 93–101.
11.
DreherAKotsogiannisC, andMcCorristonS (2007)
Corruption around the world: Evidence from a structural model.Journal of Comparative Economics35(3): 443–466.
12.
DriscollJCKraayAC (1998)
Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data.Review of Economics and Statistics80: 549–560.
13.
ElbahnasawyNG (2014)
E-government, Internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical investigation.World Development57: 114–126.
14.
FanCSLinC, andTreismanD (2009)
Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world.Journal of Public Economics93(1/2): 14–34.
15.
FerrazBCFinanF (2011)
Electoral accountability and corruption: Evidence from the audits of local governments.The American Economic Review101(4): 1274–1311.
16.
GanapatiSReddickCG (2012)
Open e-government in U.S. state governments: Survey evidence from chief information officers.Government Information Quarterly29(2): 115–122.
17.
Garcia-MurilloM (2009)
The effect of Internet access on government corruption.Electronic Government, an International Journal7(1): 22–40.
18.
HarrisonTMGuerreroSBurkeGB, et al. (2012)
Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective.Information Polity17(2): 83–97.
19.
HoechleD (2007)
Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence.Stata Journal7(3): 281–312.
20.
JainAK (2001)
Corruption: A review.Journal of Economic Surveys15(1): 71–121.
21.
JohnstonM (1998)
Fighting systemic corruption: Social foundations for institutional reform.European Journal of Development Research10(1): 85–104.
22.
KolstadIWiigA (2009)
Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries?World Development37(3): 521–532.
23.
KrishnanSTeoTSH, andLimVKG (2013)
Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: A cross-country analysis. Information and Management50(8): 638–649.
24.
LeeCChangK, andBerryFS (2011)
Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: A global perspective.Public Administration Review71(3): 444–454.
25.
LeeGKwakYH (2012)
An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement.Government Information Quarterly29(4): 492–503.
26.
LioM-CLiuM-C, andOuY-P (2011)
Can the Internet reduce corruption? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models.Government Information Quarterly28(1): 47–53.
27.
LofstedtU (2005)
E-government—Assessment of current research and some proposals for future directions. International Journal of Public Information Systems1(1): 39–52.
28.
LongoJ (2017)
The evolution of citizen and stakeholder engagement in Canada, from Spicer to # Hashtags. Canadian Public Administration69(4): 517–537.
29.
LupuDLazărCG (2015)
Influence of e-government on the level of corruption in some EU and non-EU states.Procedia Economics and Finance20(15): 365–371.
MauroP (1998)
Corruption: Causes, consequences, and agenda for further research. Finance and Development35(1): 11–14.
32.
MorganSLWinshipC (2010) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research.
Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
33.
NoveckBS (2009) Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful.
Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
34.
PathakRDSinghGBelwalR, et al. (2008)
E-governance, corruption and public service delivery: A comparative study of Fiji and Ethiopia. Journal of Administration & Governance3(1): 65–79.
35.
PathakRDNazRRahmanMH, et al. (2009)
E-governance to cut corruption in public service delivery: A case study of Fiji.International Journal of Public Administration32(5): 415–437.
36.
PesaranMH (2015)
Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels.Econometric Reviews34(6–10): 1089–1117.
37.
RellyJE (2012)
Examining a model of vertical accountability: A cross-national study of the influence of information access on the control of corruption.Government Information Quarterly29(3): 335–345.
38.
Rose-AckermanS (1996)
The political economy of corruption—Causes and consequences. Viewpoint74.
39.
Rose-AckermanS (1999) Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
40.
SeligsonMA (2002)
The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries.The Journal of Politics64(2): 408–433.
41.
SerraD (2006)
Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis.Public Choice126(1/2): 225–256.
42.
ShimDCEomTH (2008)
E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis of international data.International Journal of Public Administration31(3): 298–316.
43.
ShimDCEomTH (2009)
Anticorruption effects of information and communication technology (ICT) and social capital. International Review of Administrative Sciences75(1): 99–116.
44.
TanziV (1998)
Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, and cures.IMF Staff Papers45(4): 559–594.
45.
TreismanD (2000)
The causes of corruption: A cross-national study.Journal of Public Economics76(3): 399–457.
46.
United Nations (2014) United Nations E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Future We Want.
New York, NY: United Nations.
47.
United Nations (2016) United Nations E-Government Survey 2016.
New York, NY: United Nations.
48.
Valle-CruzDSandoval-AlmazanR, andGil-GarciaJR (2016)
Citizens’ perceptions of the impact of information technology use on transparency, efficiency and corruption in local governments.Information Polity21(3): 321–334.
49.
Van RijckeghemCWederB (2001)
Bureaucratic corruption and the rate of temptation: Do wages in the civil service affect corruption, and by how much?Journal of Development Economics65(2): 307–331.
50.
VilloriaMVan RyzinGG, andLavenaCF (2013)
Social and political consequences of administrative corruption: A study of public perceptions in Spain.Public Administration Review73(1): 85–94.
51.
WirtzBWBirkmeyerS (2015)
Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives.International Journal of Public Administration38(5): 381–396.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
