Although governments are continually investing in e-government construction, differences in e-government performance exist. This study aims to examine how policy attention affects e-government performance through the mediating effect of resource allocation and the moderating effect of public–private collaboration. Analysis of panel data from 333 prefectural governments in China confirms that policy attention can increase e-government performance, but the effect size decreases under the mediating role of financial and human resources. Furthermore, higher public–private collaboration weakens the positive effect of government resources on e-government performance and policy attention on e-government performance.
Points for practitioners
This article can help practitioners recognize the importance of policy attention in guiding e-government implementation by verifying policy attention–resource allocation–e-government performance association. Moreover, this study also provides some suggestions for practitioners seeking to collaborate with private organizations by confirming the negative role of public–private collaboration between government resources and e-government performance.
AndrewsREntwistleT (2010) Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(3): 679–701.
2.
ArianaSAzimCAntoniD (2020) Clustering of ICT human resources capacity in the implementation of E-government in expansion area: a case study from pali regency. Cogent Business & Management7(1): 1–15.
3.
BaekgaardMLarsenSKMortensenPB (2019) Negative feedback, political attention, and public policy. Public Administration97(1): 210–225.
4.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
5.
BevanS (2015) Bureaucratic responsiveness: effects of elected government, public agendas and European attention on the UK bureaucracy. Public Administration93(1): 139–158.
6.
ChenSChristensenTMaL (2023) Reputation management and administrative reorganization: How different media reputation dimensions matter for agency termination. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory33(2): 217–231.
7.
ConnellADennySEMartinS (2022) How can subnational governments develop and deliver distinctive policy agendas?International Review of Administrative Sciences88(4): 1159–1175.
8.
ConnellyBLCertoSTIrelandRD, et al. (2011) Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management37(1): 39–67.
9.
CordellaAWillcocksL (2010) Outsourcing, bureaucracy and public value: Reappraising the notion of the “contract state”. Government Information Quarterly27(1): 82–88.
10.
DavidLChiakoH (2022) Meta-analysis of collaboration and performance: moderating tests of sectoral differences in collaborative performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory32(2): 360–379.
11.
FanZMengQWeiN (2019) Fiscal slack or environmental pressures: Which matters more for technological innovation assimilation? A configurational approach. International Public Management Journal23(3): 1–33.
12.
FanZChristensenTMaL (2022) Policy attention and the adoption of public sector innovation. Public Management Review. Epub ahead of print 13 March 2022.
13.
GomesRCOsborneSPErikaL (2022) The myth of mayoral leadership in local government resource allocation: A multilevel analysis with Brazilian municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory32(3): 561–575.
14.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
15.
HuGJinSPanW, et al. (2012) A hierarchical model of e-government service capability: An empirical analysis. Government Information Quarterly29(4): 564–572.
16.
JinGShenK (2019) Political incentives for local officials and the diffusion of river chief system: From the perspective of officials’ age. Finance & Trade Economics40(4): 20–34.
17.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFRBreunigC, et al. (2009) A general empirical law of public budgets: a comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 855–873.
19.
JunKNWeareC (2011) Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(3): 495–519.
20.
KivlenieceIQuelinB (2012) Creating and capturing value in public–private ties: A private actor’s perspective. The Academy of Management Review37(2): 272–299.
21.
LavieD (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review31(3): 638–658.
22.
LeeCPChangKBerryFS (2011) Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review71(3): 444–454.
23.
LeeSYChenG (2022) Disaster experience and governments’ savings: The moderating role of organizational capacity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory32(3): 591–609.
24.
LeeSYWhitfordAB (2013) Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory23(3): 687–712.
25.
LianH (2018) Competition for attention in the Chinese bureaucracy. The Journal of Chinese Sociology5(1): 1–25.
26.
LiuTYangXZhengY (2020) Understanding the evolution of public–private partnerships in Chinese e-government: Four stages of development. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration42(4): 222–247.
27.
LoweryDGrayVBaumgartnerFR (2010) Policy attention in state and nation: Is anyone listening to the laboratories of democracy?Publius: The Journal of Federalism41(2): 286–310.
28.
MaLWuX (2020) Citizen engagement and co-production of e-government services in China. Journal of Chinese Governance5(1): 68–89.
29.
MaLChristensenTZhengY (2023) Government technological capacity and public–private partnerships regarding digital service delivery: Evidence from Chinese cities. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(1): 95–111.
30.
MortensenPB (2009) Political attention and public spending in the United States. Policy Studies Journal37(3): 435–455.
31.
MortensenPBGreen-PedersenC (2015) Institutional effects of changes in political attention: Explaining organizational changes in the top bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(1): 165–189.
32.
OliverC (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review16(1): 145–179.
33.
OsahJPade-KheneC (2020) E-government strategy formulation in resource-constrained local government in South Africa. Journal of Information Technology & Politics17(4): 426–451.
34.
PanTFanB (2023) Institutional pressures, policy attention, and e-government service capability: Evidence from China’s prefecture-level cities. Public Performance & Management Review46(2): 445–471.
35.
ParkSChoiYTBokHS (2013) Does better e-readiness induce more use of e-government? Evidence from the Korean central e-government. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(4): 767–789.
36.
Picazo-VelaSGutiérrez-MartínezIDuhamelF, et al. (2018) Value of inter-organizational collaboration in digital government projects. Public Management Review20(5): 691–708.
37.
PlourdeYParkerSCSchaanJL (2014) Expatriation and its effect on headquarters’ attention in the multinational enterprise. Strategic Management Journal35(6): 938–947.
38.
PorcherS (2016) Neither market nor hierarchy: Concurrent sourcing in water public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26(4): 800–812.
39.
ReddickCG (2006) Information resource managers and e-government effectiveness: A survey of Texas state agencies. Government Information Quarterly23(2): 249–266.
40.
SharmaS (2007) Exploring best practices in public private partnership (PPP) in e-government through select Asian case studies. The International Information & Library Review39(3–4): 203–210.
41.
SimonHA (1947) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Chicago, IL: Macmillan.
42.
SinghKMahmoodIPNatarajanS (2017) Capital market development and firm restructuring during an economic shock. Organization Science28(3): 552–573.
43.
SongJLiuHSunY, et al. (2022) Contextual recipes for adopting private control and trust in public–private partnership governance. Public Administration. Epub ahead of print 7 January 2022.
44.
StowersGNL (2002) The State of Federal Websites: The Pursuit of Excellence. Arlington, VA: The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
45.
TanHZhaoXZhangN (2022) Technology symbolization: Political mechanism of local e-government adoption and implementation. International Review of Administrative Sciences88(2): 511–532.
46.
WangW (2016) The effects of political and fiscal incentives on local government behavior: An analysis of fiscal slack in China. International Public Management Journal20(2): 294–315.
47.
WirtzBWDaiserP (2018) A meta-analysis of empirical e-government research and its future research implications. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(1): 144–163.
48.
ZhengDChenJHuangL, et al. (2013) E-government adoption in public administration organizations: Integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view. European Journal of Information Systems22(2): 221–234.
49.
ZhengYYangXGanQ, et al. (2022) Understanding the modes of digital government construction in China from the perspective of public–private-partnership: A comparative analysis based on representative provinces and cities. Governance Studies 38(4): 38–50.
50.
ZhuXZhangY (2019) Diffusion of marketization innovation with administrative centralization in a multilevel system: Evidence from China. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory29(1): 133–150.
51.
ZhuXZhaoH (2021) Experimentalist governance with interactive central–local relations: Making new pension policies in China. Policy Studies Journal49(1): 13–36.
Supplementary Material
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.
