Why did some local e-government projects start off with a bang but end with a whimper? Using the case study of an online administrative approval system in Jiangmen, China, this study explores the political mechanism behind the adoption and implementation of local e-government projects. We propose a framework for analyzing the adoption and implementation of e-government projects that encompasses three aspects: environment (political institutions); process (perceptions of information technology, power relations, and strategic interaction); and performance. The political environment shapes people’s perceptions of information technology and provides motivations and constraints for relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders choose different strategies and actions based on their positions in the power structure, which finally influences the performance of the project. In this study, due to local government leaders’ motivation to seek political achievement and subordinate agencies’ strategic responses in the Chinese political system, the online system finally turned into a symbolic tool that did very little to improve government performance.
Points for practitioners
• A framework is proposed for analyzing the adoption and implementation of e-government projects that encompasses three aspects: environment (political institutions); process (perceptions of information technology, power relations, and strategic interaction); and performance.
• A concept—technology symbolization—is emphasized by exploring the ways in which e-government can be used as a promotion tool for local officials.
• With the advent of the new generations of information technology, e-government practitioners cannot ignore the political environment and the impact of political institutions on information technology implementation.
AhnMJ (2011)
Adoption of e-communication applications in U.S. municipalities: The role of political environment, bureaucratic structure, and the nature of applications. The American Review of Public Administration41: 428–452.
2.
AhnMJBretschneiderS (2011)
Politics of e-government: E-government and the political control of bureaucracy. Public Administration Review71: 414–424.
3.
BarbosaAFPozzebonM, andDinizEH (2013)
Rethinking e-government performance assessment from a citizen perspective. Public Administration91: 744–762.
4.
BerryFSBerryWD (1990)
State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84: 395–415.
5.
BerryFSBerryWD (1992)
Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science36: 715–742.
6.
CassellM (2008)
Why governments innovate: Adoption and implementation of open source software by four European cities. International Public Management Journal11: 193–213.
7.
ChenYLiH, andZhouL-A (2005)
Relative performance evaluation and the turnover of provincial leaders in China. Economics Letters88: 421–425.
8.
CrozierMFriedbergE (1980) Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
9.
DavisFD (1989)
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q13: 319–340.
10.
EtzioniA (1970) Power as a societal force. In: OlsenME (ed.) Power in Societies.
New York:
The MacMillan Company.
11.
FeeneyMKBrownA (2017)
Are small cities online? Content, ranking, and variation of U.S. municipal websites. Government Information Quarterly34: 62–74.
12.
FichmanRGKemererCF (1999)
The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research10: 255–275.
13.
FountainJE (2001) Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change.
Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
14.
FountainJE (2008) Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States: An institutional perspective. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) The Handbook of Internet Politics.
London and New York, NY:
Routledge.
15.
Gil-GarcíaJRPardoTA (2005)
E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly22: 187–216.
16.
HansenMBNørupI (2017)
Leading the implementation of ICT innovations. Public Administration Review77: 851–860.
17.
HenningF (2018)
A theoretical framework on the determinants of organisational adoption of interoperability standards in government information networks. Government Information Quarterly 35: S61--S67.
18.
HoAT-KNiAY (2004)
Explaining the adoption of e-government features. The American Review of Public Administration34: 164–180.
19.
ImTPorumbescuG, andLeeH (2013)
ICT as a buffer to change. Public Performance & Management Review36: 436–455.
20.
JunK-NWeareC (2011)
Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21: 495–519.
21.
KamalMWeerakkodyV, andIraniZ (2011)
Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly28: 200–210.
22.
LeeC-pChangKBerryFS (2011)
Testing the development and diffusion of e‐government and e‐democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review71: 444–454.
23.
LiHZhouL-A (2005)
Political turnover and economic performance: The incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics89: 1743–1762.
24.
LiangYQiGWeiK, et al. (2017)
Exploring the determinant and influence mechanism of e-government cloud adoption in government agencies in China. Government Information Quarterly34: 481–495.
25.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1984)
The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. TheAmerican Political Science Review78: 734–749.
26.
March JG and Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organization Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.
27.
MeijerABolívarMPR (2016)
Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences82: 392–408.
28.
MisuracaGCodagnoneC, andRosselP (2013)
From practice to theory and back to practice: Reflexivity in measurement and evaluation for evidence-based policy making in the information society. Government Information Quarterly30: S68–S82.
29.
MoonMJ (2002)
The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review62: 424–433.
30.
MorgesonFVMithasS (2009)
Does e-government measure up to e-business? Comparing end user perceptions of U.S. federal government and e-business web sites. Public Administration Review69: 740–752.
31.
NorrisDFReddickCG (2013)
Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change?Public Administration Review73: 165–175.
32.
NorthDC (1991)
Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives5: 97–112.
33.
PardoTATayiGK (2007)
Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government Information Quarterly24: 691–715.
34.
ParkCHKimK (2019)
E-government as an anti-corruption tool: Panel data analysis across countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Epub ahead of print 11 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0020852318822055.
35.
PinaVTorresL, andRoyoS (2010)
Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments?International Public Management Journal13: 350–380.
36.
Puron-CidG (2014)
Factors for a successful adoption of budgetary transparency innovations: A questionnaire report of an open government initiative in Mexico. Government Information Quarterly31(Supplement 1): S49–S62.
37.
ReddickCGFrankHA (2007)
The perceived impacts of e-government on U.S. cities: A survey of Florida and Texas city managers. Government Information Quarterly24: 576–594.
38.
RogersEM (1962) Diffusion of Innovations.
New York, NY:
Free Press.
39.
RongJ (2013)
Pressure system (Yalixing Tizhi Yanjiu de Huigu, in Chinese). Comparative Economic & Social Systems170: 1–3.
40.
SavoldelliACodagnoneC, andMisuracaG (2014)
Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly31(Supplement 1): S63–S71.
41.
ShimDCEomTH (2008)
E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis of international data. International Journal of Public Administration31: 298–316.
42.
TanHZhaoX, andZhangN (2016) Technology symbolization: Exploring the political mechanism of IT implementation in local e-government project. In: Kim Y and Liu M (eds) Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research. Shanghai, China: ACM, pp. 12–19.
43.
TolbertCJMossbergerK (2006)
The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review66: 354–369.
44.
TolbertCJMossbergerK, andMcNealR (2008)
Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review68: 549–563.
45.
WeareCMussoJA, andHaleML (1999)
Electronic democracy and the diffusion of municipal web pages in California. Administration & Society31: 3–27.
46.
WestDM (2004)
E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review64: 15–27.
47.
WilsonJQ (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
New York, NY:
Basic Books.
48.
WirtzBWDaiserP (2018)
A meta-analysis of empirical e-government research and its future research implications. International Review of Administrative Sciences84: 144–163.
49.
WuJMaL, andYangY (2013)
Innovation In the Chinese public sector: Typology and distribution. Public Administration91: 347–365.
50.
YangK (2003)
Neoinstitutionalism and e-government: Beyond Jane Fountain.Social Science Computer Review21: 432–442.
51.
YangKRhoS-Y (2007)
E-government for better performance: Promises, realities, and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration30: 1197–1217.
52.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
53.
ZhaoXXuHD (2015)
E-government and corruption: A longitudinal analysis of countries. International Journal of Public Administration38: 410–421.
